Curiously, Napoleon was a dictator who did much good to France (read admnistration). He did conquer half of Europe, though, but conqueror spree is something even some more democratic governments had…
1 Like
I am Spanish He killed and caused famine of almost 15% of our total population. And destroyed a lot of our culture and heritage. So sorry, he wasnt great. He wasn’t so great in France either. He has a total control of everything. And in his second time he almost destroy France power. He was better Than Republic madness and has a great law system
4 Likes
Also better than Ancien Regime madness, imho.
2 Likes
Napoleon is a real mixed bag. He did build the state and administration that would prove a model both for modern france and many states around the world, but he also destroyed the fledgling democracy that emerged from the revolution and led his country into almost never ending war for a generation. Admitedly, his France was more egalitarian than the Ancien Regime @idonotlikeusernames but he subjected half of Europe to foreign rule, with at times devastating consequences, as @poison_mara points out.
And ultimately, his final defeat, brought about by his own hubris, marked the total crushing of French power and the neutering of France in the post war settlement. France would never again be so powerful and lost the position it had held ~1300-1800 as the greatest power in Europe, if not the world.
6 Likes
Yes, he had this conqueror spree as i said, but his deeds weren’t all bad.
At the second time he returned, France was recovering on his error in Russia and the destruction of his powerbase, so it was more of a desperate act to recover what he acquired than a proof of how his absolute power corrupted him. He was already powerhungry before…
Also, as @AlexClifford1994 said, he did build up an egalitarian society during his government. I like to think his reasons to conquer Europe were to disseminate the ideals in which he created his laws, but that’s not something certain. Napoleon may have been just someone smart enough to know a country with enough freedom and justice is enough to stop rebellions.
Again, i like to think he was just trying changing the world with his own hands. The “ends justify means” kind of person. (Sorry, i inverted it)
4 Likes
Do you remember how the military dictatorship stated on our country?
After the coup against the president João Goulart, the military should only stay in power for 6 months. But because of the “communist menace” they stayed in power for 21 years. It was a dark time for our country.
2 Likes
Well, I am Spanish and here all colors party steal hard money like half political parties are in jail. So corruption has nothing to do with colors.
1 Like
The military was intending to take the power and establish a dictatorship which only benefited them for a long time. This isn’t an example of absolute power corrupting, just someone who used a decent system for wrong deeds from the very beginning…
Curiously, the “communist menace” was the same argument used by USA during the Cold War. Combine that with the fact that Operation Condor was an alliance between CIA and several dictatorships at the time and we can assume João was assassinated by this organization after he lost his power, poor guy.
Also, João Goulart’s predecessor Jânio Quadros abdicated because “terrible forces”, and our little friend Carlos Lacerda criticized him the same way he did with Vargas (the one dictator who tried to help the country). I’m inclined to believe external forces try to keep Brazil from reaching its true potential, possibly USA. If we assume i’m right, our elections and the entrance of foreign enterprises in our country way before our internal market was established are likely to be fruits of this conspiracy. AND that’s not to mention how the british sabotaged our fledgeling industrialization during Viscount de Mauá times.
So if i am right, and i believe i am, i’d say the changes we need can only be passed after a coup d’etat, and a provisory government to change the constitution quickly and neutralize foreign control on our country. That’s where an unified government would come in handy, and where Schmitt proves himself right, i guess.
Or maybe i just got really crazed up here, in that case you can ignore me.
2 Likes
Said every good intentioned dictatorship in history. 
I am a pretty honorable and moral person, but give me 20 years with unlimited power and I will certainly do stuff that I would never do otherwise.
1 Like
Maybe we are living in two alternate universes where politicians are not power hungry individuals and all seek to do what is for the greater good of their nation. I’d love for you to name me an autocratic country that is not corrupt. When politicians are not accountable to the people but rather a select few, corruption sweeps in like a plague.
To give an example, here in my country South Africa the ANC has been in power for about 23 years. This is the party that was pivotal in the liberation movement to tear down the Apartheid government. This is the party that gave us Nelson Mandela, today they are sucking this country dry. Patronage is everywhere and with that comes corruption. This party cannot remove an imbecile of a president who cannot count and who is wholly corrupt because they know they are part of his gravy train. They are looting state resources for their own personal ends. Power does corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
There was an ANC MP several years ago who said that we the people cannot hold the ANC accountable because they have inherited a corrupt system. In other words, they can’t help themselves but loot. There was another member of the ANC who was more honest and said that they did not struggle for many years to fight apartheid only for them to be hungry therefore they are justified to take from the public purse.
You might say you would not allow power to corrupt you but if history is anything to go on, you will turn into another politician. If you had absolute power and you were really only accountable to a few people, like the army, would you really let go of power? You could be civic minded like the leader of Singapore but will you give up your hold on power that easily? Will you let someone else replace you so that they can show you how autocratic countries are run?
I know I would not trust myself… Good fascism is like a good dictatorship, sure you could find one or two (Singapore) but in general they do not exist and are universally corrupt and lack transparency. We can dream of a utopia but when politics factors in you need to scratch a few backs in order to stay in power.
5 Likes
Well, I’m against fascism, but I’m having a lot of fun playing my New Order character as a sleazy little scumbag.
3 Likes
Hey I’m french and I can support Jules. Its super rarely used. I guess Anthony would work too but I’d say its just a bit less generic than pierre.
1 Like
Not if you’re a gay guy like me it wasn’t and still isn’t today.
I think this is more of a universal truth. The few less worse ones for the most part already skirt the line between autocracy and something where stronger institutions and civil society start to emerge (again), like the latter parts of Franco’s reign in Spain.
Sure Plato already did, but the wise and benevolent Philosopher King who really only does anything because it is the best course for his country is just that an utopic thought-exercise.
On the other hand it is closer to his original concept, and imho, it’s not that generic, at least not today. Don’t know about 1920’s and 30’s France though. Jules would work, just expect my mc to try and tease the poor guy with him being 20000 leagues under the proverbial sea with his Moravian posting.
4 Likes
Plato was worst politician ever, he tried 5 times become a tyranny several polis. Always falling. And his ideas were pretty 1984 hardcore.
3 Likes
Sorry? Power doesn’t corrupt, those who assume that kind of power are usually corrupt.
Again, that’s just us being ambitious and powerhungry. And i don’t think i’d have a so weak character as to let a primary objective, be it turning the country into a powerhouse or just writing a good constitution, be overrun by the sheer desire to command things. But then, again, we won’t ever know for sure, will we?
Depends, can this person be trusted to handle this kind of power? If i ever find someone who can be trusted to handle the country in question, even better than me, i’d gladly abdicate. But if we are talking about this specific case, how can we prove they are a good person? Everyone can lie, and if everything is alright in the country, there’s no reason not to establish a democracy instead, we’d just need one with way less burocracy and an efficient constitution (anything but the outdated and contradictory piece of paper Brazil uses)
But returning to the question. Yeah, maybe i wouldn’t let go of the power easily, but that’s what constitutions and elections are for. I, for one, wouldn’t discuss with a thousand armed men escorting me out of my presidential chambers: “Damn you, past self!” 
These people are already part of a greater scheme to rob state resources for personal gains, they don’t care about the state of the country so much they care about the new house they’re buying in Paris or the new mansion built on the countryside.
These few backs, sooner or later, are overcome by the rest. And if there’s something greater than the money you use to build mansions, is the chance of having your name remembered in history for being one of the responsible for bringing your country from a crisis to a true Golden Age. I’m sure i’d rather be certain my country would be respected worldwide and in a good condition before letting democracy (well, the one i’d be the responsible for creating) be installed in the state and follow it’s way into greatness.
Well, that is my hypothetical dictatorship. But being who i am, it’s probably my own ambition to be recognized as someone necessary and having my own reason to exist. There is no easy answer for what would happen if i wielded that kind of power, there’s a lot of variables.
If you call him Jules, could you make him like Samuel L. Jackson’s character in Pulp Fiction?
I think this YouTube video by CGP Grey explains power in a simple way, and shows that politics has some form of corruption. The Philosopher King does not exist, human nature is such that any person given absolute authority is bound to be corrupt. I would not even trust Nelson Mandela with that kind of power.
The Rules for Rulers
3 Likes
If not subject to proper checks and balances most of us would go some degree of bad and crooked the very temptation will eventually wear you down. Now it is certainly true there are degrees of difference and certainly difference of flavours even in dictators, but usually none of them are anywhere near good. With absolute power, achieving being merely generally “tolerable” to your subjects would be high praise and a mark of character and again, also represent the utter failure of institutions and civil society (if it still exists at all) the provide us with effective checks and balances.
No, you likely won’t not in the absence of strong institutional frameworks and civil society, unless that person also has very strong ties to you (like he’s your son, for example) because successful dictators try not to leave loose end and that includes disposing of troublesome predecessors who might still have their own power-base and could become future threats again. That’s the brutal calculus of power.
If those represent strong institutions and a civil society well then I hate to break it buddy, but you’d just be one democratically elected president among many.
You do realize that most real-life dictators have found living decadently to not be incompatible with leaving some sort of legacy. Every so often they even manage to deliver somewhat on that, but usually at costs that weren’t worth it in retrospect.
1 Like
I think you misunderstood it. What i want isn’t a true feudal lord commanding everything, but a centralized government backed by a constitution that prevents the ruler from genociding and raping people. You can call it a constitutional monarchy, but one with an hierarchy. This would keep minor events, like trials, within the lower levels and those of great importance within the power of the “president”, unless said event interferes in what the president is doing. Then the leader outranks the other guy.
Of course, it should be made so that public vote (legit), could depose any of the elected politicians with freedom of speech, media, and all those Victoria II reforms.
I’d like to see this ruler go crazy with a set of permanent laws and the entire nation with the power to force him out whenever they want. It would be close to democracy, sure, but with way less burocracy and quick decisions.
Well, it would require more thinking to do it on paper, but that’s the gist of it.
1 Like
That will lead to a new feudalism where commoners would be totally controlled by a group that gives zero shit about them and only is worried in their own personal money.
Basically Spain since 1870 to 1902. or more. There are fake constitutions. But are made so way only rich have real power in vote. And manipulate results to be the way they want.
Rich becomes rich poor still poor as hell. and military is there to avoid commoners rebel. That was called a peaceful setting and solution. Were each party government 4 5 years and then change it doesn’t matter what people voted.
That leading no political party give a shit about common people.They were focus all laws in rich people rights.
It was so shit that it has to comme a dictator of right wing.then republic then Franco a shit dictator again.
So no that regime is as corrupt as everyone with power
3 Likes