Dictatorship

A Dictatorship is a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by one person. A democracy is basically power to the people. In a dictatorship one person rules all but in a democracy people rule the people.

Because although they were rulers with alsmost unlimited power (hence 'despots') they had been influenced by the ideas of the Engightment and generally used that power for the well-being of their subjects.

Dictatorship can work. For example, the German Empire from 1871 to 1918. The reason it was so short was because of the first world war. Because of Adolf Hitler, a great government was taken down. Another example: Government of Japan, the Japanese have the best economy for many reasons, one of them happens to be dictatorship. If one person has all the power, and he is a good political leader, the country will be thriving through issues. Democracy, does not work, because there are way to many people in that particular government. Dictatorship can be fair and just. You just have to have the right leader.

Since Russia have had regular elections since the fall of the Soviet Union one can NOT call it a dictatorship. On the other hand there is a number of serious shortcomings which raises question about the state of Russian democracy, and still makes Russia's neighbours suspicious. Firstly, there is a lack of a free press as the main media are controlled by Putin supporters and doesn't allow competing parties to argue their case in the time running up to elections. Secondly, Russia needs to have the 'Rule of law' before it can be classified as a working democracy. President Medvedev has been speaking about these and other problems (like widespread corruption) since his election, but it remains to be seen whether any action will be taken or he is just trying to neutralise the opposition by playing 'Good cop / Bad cop' together with Putin.

Pro: Fast decision making (the decision does not need to pass through many layers of parliament)

Pro: Cheaper (no need to pay for elections)

Pro: Fast disaster releif (the dictator can tell people where to live)

Pro: one guy calls the shots

Con: That one guy could be an idiot or worse

to some he was and to others he was a hero

Iosef Stalin was the tyrannical dictator of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics during WW2. They fought with the Allies from June 1941, when Germany invaded, ignoring the non-aggression pact.

Mohandas Gandhi was a political activist.

No. The strict limits of 10-years of presidency maximum prevents this from being the case.

The question as posed gives no specifics on the country in question. As a result. It is impossible to give any decent answer. Every country responds to its citizens differently. Some are very motivated to satisfy the plebiscite's demands, some are very motivated to crush all dissent, and others are entirely indifferent.

Vercingetorix (sp?), a Gaul who brought the tribes together to fight the Romans. Ceasar captured him and brought him to Rome. He was kept in prison and then publicly strangled.

Dictator was a Roman appointment. In Rome, a dictator was appointed when the annual consular elections failed or there was a major military crisis. The term was for six months to resolve the crisis. Julius Caesar brought out the knives when he made himself doctator for life to impose order on the broken electoral system. Opposents simply shortened his life to end the dictatorship. His successor Agustus avoided this trap by more subtle controls.

In other places similar offices existed. In the Greek world, the word was Tyrant. A tyrant arose when there was a political problem - usually the middle and lower classes sick of being ruled by an unscrupulous aristocracy and retaliating by supporting a leader who would govern for the general good. Tyrants got a bad name because, although populist, they would levy taxes to support the bodyguard they needed to impose rule and protect themselves from aristocrats wanting power back.

The word Dictator today has an ugly connotation as a result of the murderous excesses of such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao Ze Dung, Duvalier, Mugabe etc etc.

It started in the middle east when china elected a bad president and he started a form of dictatorship.

Judging by the reform she made, it is doubtful whether Maria Theresa of Austria was either enlightened or a despot. Her reign had been dominated by the figure of Fredrick the Great who threatened her state with extinction within weeks of her accession. He also deprived the empress of her most valuable province and obliged her to institute reforms in order to preserve her state.

It is also evident that most of Maria Theresa's reforms were not her own. Although she showed a good judge of character and expertise in appointing her advisors, Hugwitz and Kaunitz, she was very easy to manipulate. Indeed, many of the reforms were done against the wishes of Maria Theresa herself, most noticeably the curbing of the power of the Church introduced by Joseph. These reforms were very reluctantly accepted by the Empress, as she was a devout Roman Catholic and did not want to interfere with the Church's power. All of the reforms introduced were very Enlightened although some had small elements of enlightened ideas.

An oligarchy

Because they dictate everyone listens to them as their threats etc are no empty and they will murder, ruin towns and things so people don't respect them but they do what they want because they are scared and intimidated therefore the dictator gains power from scaring people instead of being a good leader and having respect.

A monarch who brings about positive political and social change. NovaNet answer for all you NovaNet cheaters.

The purpose of a dictatorship is for one political party to get total control of the country and its people. The people turn to them usually during times of uncertainty and can be easily manipulated (like the Nazi Party turning Germans against Jewish People).

No a prime minister is not a dictator. The Prime Minister is simply the leader of the political party which is in government (which is democratically elected).

yes!

*Ninjaboii

A "tyrant" --- which is derived from the same root as the word tyranny. the official title can be all sorts of things from Emperor, Czar, King, Queen, el Presidente, Supreme Ruler, General, or - as in the case of the head of state in North Korea - several titles at once: "Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea", "Chairman of the Central Military Commission", "Chairman of the National Defence Commission", "Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army", and presidium member of the "Politburo of the Workers' Party of Korea".

During WW II, Europe had three totalitarian rulers, who were Adolf Hitler, Francisco Franco, and Benito Mussolini.

Not necessarily. Roman "dictators" were elected into office by the Senate, whereas Socialist dictators of the 20th Century Europe usually led revolutions against a sitting monarch.

German in the its golden years (Stresemen's Recovery) "1924-29" had adopted many diffrent schemes such as that involved borrowing money from America, but when the wall street crash of 1929 took place America needed all it money back which plunged German into a Depression, there were no jobs, there was no money and people were desperate for food. Things were looking very bad for Germany and its people, when after his spell in prison and writting his book "Mein Kampf" Hitler with the Nazi party came back and shone a light of hope for the people. He had a new tac-tic, insted of using extreme violence like he did before he decides to use a more polictical approach but still keeping most of the parties aims, he offered free food, More jobs and promised a better life for all Germans. This enouraged the German people to vote for the Nazi party, Also usally in time of extreme circumstances people vote for extreme parties because although radical styles are used they usually pay off.

He twisted the ideology of Marxism/Leninism to fit his own personal greed, and assassinated his former Bolshevik comrades who all realized that he had betrayed the revolution. He also created a "Cult of Personality" through excessive propaganda while the nation was developing methods of communication, therefore the first voice many peasants heard over the radio was Stalin's. He maintained a police state focused on silencing all forms of dissent, and altered pictures and historical documents, cutting all other revolutionaries out of Soviet history until it was just him and Lenin, the only man he could not deny existence of to the public.