Think of a dictator — straightforward and intense; clinging to power and downright sadistic to his opponents. Men like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein and, more recently, Kim Jong-Un and Nicolas Maduro are easily shown as malevolent and even evil. Given their actions in both previous generations and present, this label is perfectly justified.
One question is: Are all strongmen evil in all their manifestations? Could a strongman ever do good as society would define it? In no defense of autocracy, government-induced famine or any resulting suffering, I think it’s crucial to ask. A discussion would help establish a metric by which foreign government is judged by our own.
American citizens are presented with evil dictators constantly in media and pop culture. Movies like “Fury” or the “Call of Duty” gaming franchise craft maniacal figures who have seduced their country and convinced it to lash out. There have been numerous examples of this archetype, and it’s well established with figures like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un. Of course, this does make sense given our constitutional foundation, where we believe in representative democracy and enlightenment principles. Authors like John Locke and Ben Franklin would easily dismiss autocratic systems given their education and insight.
Going deeper, any Western journalist would relish the chance to look into the eyes of Kim Jong-Un and ask how he could starve his own people. What mind is needed to commit such a heinous act?
History presents readers with numerous leaders who, by present standards, would be deemed strongmen. Marcus Aurelius, held in high esteem by stoics worldwide, was still proclaimed an emperor. A figure who, according to “Marcus Aurelius Meditations, Deaths and Facts,” held control over the Roman military and population. He led a successful campaign and can claim authorship over “The Meditations.” It’s a book on his view of life and personal development. Given this information, the next question is simple: What separated Aurelius from contemporary strongmen like Nicolas Maduro?
Aurelius engaged in philosophical training, while the latter, or potentially any contemporary strongman, engages in pathology. They have an intense and systemic character vehemently opposing political opposition. This discrepancy offers scholars one way to distinguish between a benevolent ruler and a malevolent autocrat.
Now we can ask, does the phrase evil always precede the word autocrat? Perhaps we should investigate the driving factors behind a rising strongman. But first we need to use a thought experiment. This tool will allow us to conjure hypothetical situations and pose questions simultaneously. In the next few paragraphs, we will investigate a series of hypotheticals for what could motivate a strongman.
On the off chance a national leader like a president, chancellor or prime minister is assassinated, chaos could ensue. The lack of leadership, whether planned or accidental, could easily grant an autocrat a chance to come to power.
This was the case in Macedonia with the death of Phillip II. His son Alexander, better known as Alexander the Great, took command after his father’s passing. According to “Alexander the Great | Biography, Empire, Death & Facts,” after conquering from Macedon to the Indus River Valley, he established Hellenistic laws and culture across the Persian Empire, preventing chaos. Of course, a leader is as well known for establishing laws as he is breaking them.
Pushing forward in time, a beloved American figure suspended habeas corpus. According to “President Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War,” during the rebel uprising, Abraham Lincoln found himself in a nation at war with itself. The man who suspended one of the most cherished American freedoms brought the nation together, paradoxically, by rejecting a legal part of it.
These examples, interpretatively speaking, show men who could balance extreme power. Moreover, their ability to take said power and be constructive with it speaks volumes about their character. All of this does not defame American democracy or encourage regular use of strongmen. After all, having access to representatives vouching for their constituents makes our system function. With that, maybe these men cripple, if not challenge the common idea that all strongmen are evil in every instance. Surely there must be more to the story than just an autocratic archetype. Supposed strongmen may think themselves necessary in times of crisis. Such times may call for more authoritarian measures to save a nation.
