The myth of the good dictator

It's hard to think of even one authoritarian leader who did a reasonable job

A certain WhatsApp forward arrives in my inbox every few months. This is supposedly an excerpt from a speech by an African dictator explaining why elections are a bad idea during wars, famines, periods of financial instability, periods of prosperity, good times and bad times. Elections are divisive, and the election process distracts rulers and drags them away from the stern task of governance.

Enough people in my circle of acquaintances (CoA) seem to believe enough in this tripe to forward it. My CoA consists largely of educated folks who live in democratic nations. (I’ve never received this forward from someone who lives in a full-blown dictatorship). In an unscientific way, this attitude throws light on why so many disparate authoritarians, who all share a contempt for democracy and its norms, have come to power in the 21st century. 

There’s both an enormous body of data and lived experience to contradict the authoritarian “logic” cited above. The most obvious counter-example pertains to the Second World War. Two big-daddy authoritarians won power through elections in Italy (1924) and Germany (1932). Both Mussolini and Hitler abolished elections as soon as they could, citing the higher purpose of nation-building. Japan similarly suspended elections as it got embroiled in a war with the US. In contrast, the UK held general elections in 1940 and 1945, and the US held elections in 1942 (mid-term) and in 1944 while fighting the Second World War. Guess who won?

Apart from this rather important data-point, we have the historical experiences of several millennia to show that authoritarianism doesn’t work, except for the chap at the top. Through the vast majority of recorded history, the world has been ruled by absolute monarchs, good or bad, and they’ve mostly been the latter.

Post-tribal societies gravitate naturally to the strongman model, and historically, the strongman usually establishes dynastic rule. We, therefore, have the historical record and data from hundreds of dynasties. It’s depressing. Dynasties tend to throw up one half-decent, or not-so-bad ruler, for every three or four incompetents, who sandwich that one outlier’s reign.

The modern experience with authoritarianism in Africa and Latin America is even worse.  There have been innumerable loonies in charge of various nations across those two continents. It’s hard to think of even one who did a reasonable job.

The example of Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore is also often cited in favour of authoritarianism. True, he did a splendid job. But that one positive experience must be weighed against his hundred-odd authoritarian contemporaries, who did awful things.

More broadly speaking, sustained progress in terms of what the social scientists call the human development index (HDI) never occurred through all the millennia when absolute rulers were in power everywhere. One absolute ruler with decent governance ability would pull up HDI. The next three would push it down again.

In 1 CE, Roman citizens had a similar life expectancy and better literacy than most 14th century Europeans. Sustained improvement in HDI occurred only after the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution and it wasn’t an accident that HDI improvement coincided with the phasing out of the concept of absolute monarchy. 

There’s an intuitive way to understand why authoritarianism doesn’t work. It’s true that an absolute ruler who does work selflessly for the improvement of the realm and the prosperity of subjects can accomplish a great deal. But it’s even more true that individuals with such characteristics rarely seek power. Also, unlike in a democratic system, an authoritarian system doesn’t allow for the peaceful transition of power either. Which means there’s usually a painful mess as and when transition occurs and that tends to lead to HDI slippages.

While Lord Acton’s truism that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely holds true, constitutional monarchs can be useful. A figurehead ruler who opens parliament, hands out honours and awards, and indulges in polite chit-chat with foreign dignitaries serves the same purposes as figurehead presidents. And unlike citizen-presidents, dynastic rulers can be transmuted into objets d’art, and royalty can be branded as tourist attractions.