What if I were a Dictator?
The twentieth century is often referred to as the “Age of Authoritarianism” by the political scientists as it gave birth to a number of dictators in every part of the world. However, the word “dictatorship” also earned a very bad repute in this period. It was mainly owing to two reasons: first; the western propaganda, and second; the dictators themselves. The crisis that emerged in this century in the form of two great wars and then the Cold War demanded strong leaderships for their resolution. We saw many forms of dictatorships but all of them had one thing in common: rapid development in exchange for massive abuse of power.
Differences aside, it is a fact that dictators always come with a number of advantages, especially in the economic sphere. They enjoy enormous powers with no one strong enough to intercept their path. This gives them the legitimacy to take bold steps for the betterment of the nation. Conversely, democratic leaders are bound to act in accordance with the will of so many people that have a stake in the working of the government. They are afraid of the media’s criticism and losing their financial support and vote bank. However, I do agree that the dictators of the previous century were generally ruthless who gave less and took more from their nations.
Being a proponent of socialism, I admire authoritarian governments with centralized economies; I believe that every country in the developing world needs strong rulers to consolidate the nation and bolster their economies.
I see liberal democracies as not only insufficient but also mere delusions when they claim to be providing a solution to the plight of poor nations. Wealth is the new weapon and the economic sphere is the new war zone in this neoliberal world order. And for economic sustenance and stability in poor countries, a comprehensive political action with enormous state intervention in private businesses is needed. Thus, if the developing world wants to have rapid industrialization, better living standard, and upgradations of infrastructure facilities, it must adopt a mixture of dictatorship and democracy (illiberal democracy as experts call it).
My proposition can be supported by several historical examples from the developing world. Indonesia, Russia, Turkey, and China have this type of system and it works perfectly for them. The Arab world has performed well during all these years without the Westminster system. Iraq was a regional power until Saddam ruled them. In the reign of Ayub Khan, the Pakistani economy was growing at a pace that is never achieved after him. Yugoslavians never got the same living standard they had enjoyed under Marshal Tito. Libya under Muammar Qadafi was such an exemplary egalitarian welfare state which can never be accomplished by the capitalist democracies. Ataturk carved out a new, respectable nation out of a fragmenting empire. Salazar put Portugal out of the miserable aftershocks of WWI and made the country stand on its feet. Between 1960 and 1985, authoritarian Singapore, South Korea, and Indonesia were amongst the fastest-growing economies in the world. Differences aside but Sukarno will always remain the “Father of Development” for Indonesians. Mao may be dubbed as the murderer of millions of Chinese in the western literature but modern China owes a huge credit to him for the name and recognition that it has today. In parts of Latin America too, the technocratic governments working in an authoritarian way succeeded in imposing robust economic policies during the Cold War period. Egyptians are still enjoying the blessing of safe drinking water throughout the country due to the land reforms of Gamel Abdul Nasser, a goal that democratic India could not accomplish in the last seventy-two years.
Hence, dictatorship is also a form of government that has its own pros and cons. I am not at all an admirer of pure dictatorship but I am also against the universalization of Western model of government throughout the world. The system of government should match the history and culture of any society.
Dictators have tremendous power and if this power is applied in the right direction with the right technique, it can alter the fate of their nation. Just as Hitler or Mussolini did in the previous century. They showed that authoritarianism could prove to be ten times more effective than democracy in the time of acute crisis. They also showed that people would prefer to eat in a dictatorship than to starve in a democracy. Democracies have hardly revolutionized any society but authoritarianism either results in or is a result of a social revolution.
So that is my opinion about dictatorship and authoritarianism. Having all these ideas in mind, one day I came across this interesting question, “What if I were a dictator?” and I just started thinking about it with utmost curiosity.
I immediately started considering all the heroic things I would have done if I had been a dictator. The more I thought, the more my imagination fascinated me. I was not sure about what I would do if I become something like that but I was very sure about what I would definitely not do. Nonetheless, the idea of being a dictator pushed me into deeper insight and then I wanted to have a clear and logical answer.
After untangling the tangled thoughts, I finally reached a conclusion in the form of “the objective” of my rule as a dictator. That is — use tyranny to end tyranny. Yes, If I became a dictator, I would use the force against the enforcers.
Mmm, HOW?
Caution: Highly fictitious content beyond this line. The answer is as utopian as the title picture of this article but I can assure you, it is full of high spirits, humanism, and anger against the system in which we all live.
So, here is a step by step elaboration of what I figured out:
Step one; National Integration:
An authoritative regime tends to die its own death. It comes to an end when it loses support in its own house. The tussle between revolutionary and then counter-revolutionary movements destabilizes any regime and ultimately it collapses. It happened with the Czarist Russia, the Ottoman Empire and with numerous other mighty dynasties. Therefore, national integration is a prerequisite. Stability comes with uniformity in national thought. In the words of Allama Khaldoon, all factions of the society must have active and coherent group solidarity. This will happen by a mass education system, equitable distribution of wealth, adequate economic opportunities, cleansing social maladies, instigating a sense of pride and brotherhood, protection of the poor against the mighty, and strong nationalism.
Step two; High moral training:
The second step includes the highest moral training of the masses. Values like self-esteem, honor, integrity, ego, discipline, and sobriety would be inculcated by education, institutionalism, and propaganda (which is also an absolute necessity against external intrusions). Step two focuses on creating a highly principled nation that would never side with aggression and fallacy.
Moreover, material worship would be discouraged during this moral training as I believe that unbridled advancement in material always morally corrupts the masses. As Rousseau said, “The more we have progressed materially, the more we have regressed morally.” Excessive likeness for luxury and comfort always makes people ravenous and ultimately they become an enemy of their own kind. The greed for material gain surpasses all other instincts of human nature. Individuals become self-centered and their interest in community welfare gradually perishes. Thus, the regime would promote collectivism and distributism in the economic sphere even if it demanded to confiscate the property of the rich. This clearly shows that in my rule, exploitative tendencies of capitalism would be suppressed brutally.
The rule would also curtail freedom of speech. It would punish those who spread confusion and hatred against others. It would also prohibit the display of wealth and status. For that, the government would ban the production and import of opulent goods.
Step three; Putting own house in order first:
Then, it would be imperative to establish an exemplary society where people enjoy good living standards, justice, and all the basic facilities they deserve. The regime would be dictatorial but it would aim at making such progress that brings benefit to each and every faction of society. It would show the world that the path we are following elevates the status of humanity. This progress would not make the people slaves of their jobs, wealth, and personal desires. It would not widen the gulf between haves and have-nots. The progress that would be for every individual of the society. The progress that would not make a minority having the majority’s share of wealth and privileges. The progress that would satisfy humans rather than making them repent over their competitive lives. And this progress would not come at the cost of rejecting the traditions and values.
Step four, Military training:
After minds and souls, bodies will be strengthened. Once the internal matters are totally under control, I would start focusing on doing something really dictatorial. Conscription will be made compulsory for all young people as it is today in Israel, Singapore, France, Sweden, and Venezuela. The masses will be encouraged to fight for honor and self-respect. As it is a dictator’s rule, I would encourage a war-like nation always ready to defend the nation against both internal and external threats. The youth would be the most important defenders of the national ideology.
Nonetheless, a victorious regime needs warriors in both scientific and military battlegrounds. Therefore, besides military training, those with exceptional mental abilities would also be equipped with the best modern education.
Step five; Getting rid of immediate enemies:
I would get rid of all those who will be envious of our success, or who wanted to subjugate us. It is obvious that many a rebellious movement will gain momentum inside the regime. So, they would be resolved with prudence and trick. Similarly, external enemies would also be recognized and crushed with force. The regime would explicitly warn all covert and overt enemies to stay away. Reconciliation would always be our first choice, but extermination will be the second, third, fourth and fifth.
Step six, Go and kill the repression:
Finally, fighting for those who can not fight by themselves. Killing the oppressors for the sake of the salvation of humanity. Killing those who are dreaming to rule the world. Obliteration of such regimes that are spreading mischief in the world, making the humans their slaves, corrupting the youth, destroying the cultures, exploiting the resources of future generations, deteriorating the environment, killing the children, and waging wars for material gains.
Only peaceful means are not sufficient to maintain peace in this world; sooner or later, the world has to fight against the exploiters. Therefore, I would urge my nation to eradicate the existing heinous system and create another world order that suits the whole of humanity. My regime would be intended to end pugnacities with force and coercion.
