According to legend, the ancient Roman statesman Cincinnatus was plowing his fields when news arrived that the Aequi, Rome’s powerful enemy to the east, had invaded. Rome was in need of swift, decisive action, and the senate had chosen him to serve as dictator, with absolute power over the military and government. Cincinnatus set down his plow, took control and, in a matter of weeks, saved Rome.
This story reinforces the myth of the “benevolent dictator”— the idea of a leader who holds absolute power, yet only uses it for the common good, to address problems efficiently, and create a just regime. But can a truly benevolent dictator exist in today’s world?
Nations established modern democracies to safeguard against the potentially destructive whims of a single individual. When functioning properly, democracies enable a society to be freer, and provide stability by protecting against corruption and the abuse of power. This is accomplished by holding regular, free, and fair elections, imposing term limits, and establishing strong legislative branches and court systems. Maintaining a free press also helps keep politicians accountable for their actions and encourages citizens to engage in their governments and communities.
In a dictatorship, absolute or near-absolute power is held by a single individual who is free to impose their vision on society. Under certain conditions, the idea of a dictator can sound appealing, like when a democracy isn't functioning as it should due to corruption, economic instability, or extreme political polarization. At these moments, people may be willing to give up some democratic rights and freedoms for hopes of a better future. Authoritarian-leaning leaders present themselves as the ones who can fix everything. They distill complex problems into simple talking points and promise quick solutions.
Some of the most overt authoritarian leaders have taken this strategy, including military dictators who seized control through coups like Augusto Pinochet, Mobuto Sese Seko, and Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi, for example, initially asserted himself as a revolutionary hero, canceling the country's exploitative foreign oil contracts. But the longer he was in power, the more riddled with paranoia he became. Like Pinochet and Mobuto, he used his position to target and torture opponents, embark on campaigns of mass violence against everyday people, and build an enormous personal fortune.
Other modern dictators were initially elected democratically, then strategically accumulated power by embracing authoritarian forms of control. Italy’s Benito Mussolini and Germany’s Adolf Hitler, for example, gained popularity during waves of mass discontent. Both channeled economic woes into racist rhetoric and embraced fascism, a type of authoritarianism which exalts the importance of one nation, or race, above all others. Once in office, such leaders gradually dismantle checks on their power, including removing judges who might rule against them, abolishing term limits, or refusing to acknowledge unfavorable election results.
Since they punish dissenting voices, dictators are often surrounded with yes-men, who are promoted based on loyalty over expertise, ultimately wreaking incalculable economic, social, and environmental costs. But these costs can also be hidden from view. Dictators build up cults of personality by minimizing negative coverage and pushing positive propaganda that presents them as strong or heroic. This can make it almost impossible to accurately measure their success. Did Mussolini really make the trains run on time? It’s hard to know, since he would have punished those who said otherwise.
While some modern dictators have brought modest growth to their nation’s economies and industries, most have enriched the few and left widespread destruction in their wake. Even so-called benevolent dictators, whose regimes lacked overt violence, stand accused of censoring journalists and limiting the rights and freedoms of citizens.
Back to ancient Rome. Perhaps the most important dimension of Cincinnatus’ legendary benevolent dictatorship is not that he held total power, but that he gave it up after only 16 days. Once Rome was safe, he stepped down and retired to his fields. His willingness to relinquish control to the senate was as important to the common good as his ability to fend off invaders. In practice, no modern dictator has lived up to this ideal. Dictators don’t willingly walk away from power, they continuously crave more. That’s why institutions that provide checks on leaders must be safeguarded: in the hands of an aspiring dictator, even seemingly robust democracies can sink into repressive, authoritarian regimes.
