Is There Any Possible Way To Have An Effective Benevolent Dictatorship/Oligarchy?


The elite, when left unrestricted, will only work for itself.

We see hundreds of examples through this throughout history, and even in our modern day, with nations such as North Korea having an unrestricted elite hold power over all of society.

My question is, do you believe there is any way we could have a benevolent/First World dictatorship/oligarchy without any form of election whatsoever?


But I don’t think that it could be possible. You always need a villian or a victim - a good-bad-schema - to hold your people together. And the people who wouldn’t be selected - start a rebellion and so on. (e.j.The Russian Revolution)

If we assume that the elite contains only “perfect” people and have a bevevolent politic. What would be with the “non-perfect”? Even if they go well, they want more: independence and everything else what they don’t have.

A human always want to feel special and be a member of a group. If he/she don’t have it - what would he/she do to be one or to destroy it?

Absolutely everything.


I mean I guess it depends on you form of benevolence.
If the state doesn’t want you to do drugs, and will imprison you for it, yet allows people to engage in polygamy and the likes, is that a good trade off?
I think that maybe you could get like, a one-rule ‘benevolent’ ruler, but sooner rather than later, someone is gonna come along that wants power no matter the cost.


It depends on what they would do as leader.

If they were a progressive dictator who embraced social justice, tolerance and other more left-wing views, they would probably be more popular than a conservative right-wing dictator.

However, people get bored quickly and will always disagree with you on something, so the only way of effectively creating a dictatorship, in my opinion, is go through the motions of a democracy within a one-party state (e.g. have term limits and have people elected but only within one party or movement).


The US is the best example of a mix of an Oligarchy and a Democracy. Only difference is you are the one who elects the elite, and the elite are backed by the support of the people. They have a word for that though. A Republic.


Holy christ I just saw LiberalBrit’s post. I don’t think that is how that works pal, see the Middle East.


Possible? Yes. Common? No. Why? Go see CGP Grey’s Rules for Rulers video on youtube (or better yet, purchase and read the entire book). The more concentrated the power is the fewer keys to power there are. In a proper democracy/republic everyone has a voice in the government so the keys to power are relatively spread out. If a leader wants power they need to appease the people to get those keys to power on their side. In an aristocracy, the power is concentrated within a social class or classes, usually (and worstly, at least according to Aristotle) and so there are less people the leader has to appease, thus fewer keys to power. In an autocracy the keys to power are very few and very powerful, meaning that the leader only has to appease a small minority in order to rule everyone and the average citizen has little or no say in how things go. While it is technically possible to have a benevolent autocrat whom balances the interests of the people and elites (Juan Peron and Huey Long are decent examples) it is a risky and often unfulfilling burden. As such, most “man of the people” types who actually have a genuine interest in the good of most citizens prefer mobocratic or democratic systems, even if they are authoritarian ones (look at Putin, for example)