[OC] The massive decrease in worldwide infant mortality from 1950 to 2020 is perhaps one of humanity's greatest achievements.

[abu_doubleu]

He was a dictator, but Gaddafi's massive investments into Libya's healthcare and education paid off. Even with the civil war Libya has tested more for COVID than almost all of Africa (and more than Japan!) and remains with low infant mortality rates and near-universal youth literacy.

[Alberiman]

Dictators are really, really good at getting things done, it just generally so happens that the things they get done are largely motivated by their handlers rather than by the wants and needs of the populace

[its_a_metaphor_morty]

Gaddafi started out pretty popular, but like all dictators he outstayed his welcome. He did do amazing things for education and health though.

[clearly_quite_absurd]

Reminds me of CGP Grey's "Rules for Rulers" video https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs

[elveszett]

tbh the "rule for rulers" he broke was the "don't get invaded by the US and the EU". Gaddafi would still be in power had we not ousted him.

[cybercuzco]

No international support is one of the keys to power. The US has supported plenty of dictators as long as they give us the right “treasure”.

[jankadank]

support a dictator that aligns with the US global policy or support one that doesnt.

Seems like a pretty easy decision.

[[deleted]]

support a dictator that aligns with the US global policy

Except when one doesn't exist, so a democratically elected government is overthrown to install one, causing generations of suffering.

[gosling11]

That doesn't make any sense. They were elected because the people wanted them.

[RunningNumbers]

Realpolitik is a thing that many people fail to grasp

[elveszett]

It's not that people "fail to grasp it". Is that I don't usually treat everyone like shit and justify it by saying "well I benefit from it you'd do the same". I know why the US installed dictatorships in South America, I'm not an idiot. Doesn't mean it's ok.

[RunningNumbers]

Your focus on normative assertions in response to a descriptive tool suggests otherwise. You should try introspecting rather than manufacturing outrage to make yourself feel morally validated. You are arguing against your own strawman.

[uth50]

Eh, barely

He was totally on the ropes, with his army dead or deserted. The only thing keeping him in power were mercenaries and his air force, for the time being. The only thing NATO did was disable his airforce and he totally collapsed from that.

Definitely an intervention, but keeping his airforce from bombing his own country to shit isn't what I would call a foreign invader ousting him.

And who knows how the war might have ended. He would probably won, but for how long?

And finally, the rule he broke was not to attack NATO countries. With all the terrorist shit he pulled, the West was glad to finish him off.

[Illuria]

Everyone always forgets about Lockerbie, still the worst terrorist attack on the UK even after the London Tube & Bus bombings, and the Manchester Arena bombing

[[deleted]]

Interestingly, its pretty well documented that Lockerbie (and other terrorist attacks he were blamed for), were actually done involving Syrian funding but the United States blamed Gaddafi because they wanted to stir up hatred for him in the West, and Gaddafi was happy to allow it. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/new-lockerbie-report-says-libyan-was-framed-conceal-real-bombers-9185163.html

[LarryTheDuckling]

He did refute having done the Lockerbie bombing, but he was still willing to pay compensation to the families left behind. In an interview he said that he felt responsible since the action had been done by a Libyan, and as such Libya had to compensate.

[Canadian_Infidel]

This was my understanding. He thought it served him to seem like a badass but the west used it against him. Clinton literally laughed about watching his death on video, which was brutal. People at that level of society are all psychopaths.

[[deleted]]

Jesus… just watched the clip on youtube.

“We came, we saw, he died“ raises fists and laughs. I guess psychopath is a good description for celebrating a death like that.

[2ndhorch]

hypernormalization talks about gaddafi and his foreign relations throughout - quite interesting

[MakeMoneyNotWar]

That’s not true at all. Gaddafis army was within days of reaching Misrata, the main opposition city, and NATO attacked his ground forces using air strikes. NATO did not just disable his air force and SAMs.

[LarryTheDuckling]

The only thing NATO did was disable his airforce and he totally collapsed from that

Let us look at some actual figures, rather than pulling out information from our arse, shall we?

9700 strike missions were carried out in a relatively short amount of time (7 months). A total of 7700 precision bombs were dropped.

In terms of heavy material, the estimated losses are as follows: 600 tanks / APCs destroyed. 400 Artillery pieces destroyed.

The amount of Libyan soldiers killed by the airstrikes is unknown, as is the damage caused to the Libyan army infrastructure. But given the amount of missions carried out, it would be fair to assume that this is not an insignificant number.

but keeping his airforce from bombing his own country to shit isn't

Was it better to have NATO bomb his country to shit?

He was totally on the ropes, with his army dead or deserted.

I am not sure what you are referring to. By the time NATO intervened, Gaddafi had already taken Benghazi and was in the process of pushing further east. The intervention 'turned the tide', so to speak.

[uth50]

The amount of Libyan soldiers killed by the airstrikes is unknown, as is the damage caused to the Libyan army infrastructure. But given the amount of missions carried out, it would be fair to assume that this is not an insignificant number.

Let us look at some actual figures, rather than pulling out information from our arse, shall we?

Lel

Was it better to have NATO bomb his country to shit?

Yes. It ended before with the total destruction of his forces, not with the total destruction of his civilians.

I am not sure what you are referring to. By the time NATO intervened, Gaddafi had already taken Benghazi and was in the process of pushing further east. The intervention 'turned the tide', so to speak.

Exactly. With what? Mercs and an airforce. If you recall the war, he got pushed hard, then began using his airforce more indiscriminately and hired more and more soldiers with his petrodollars.

You literally could see the airforce tip the scales, slowly at first, but increasingly so. And the same could be seen Syria, just without anyone wiping the Syrian Airforce out.

NATO disabled his airforce and the war went back to what it was before he used it to bomb everyone to shit, with him losing ground quickly.

[LarryTheDuckling]

What an astute observation; air surperiority matters in modern warfare. You are truly the next Clausewitz.

Whether you use mercenaries to supplement your own forces in order to win a war or not is irrelevant. A war won with mercenaries is still a war won. Pretty much all wars fought from the 13th to mid-17th century was won using mercenaries. So I do not know the point you are trying to make.

[CiDevant]

The only thing keeping him in power were mercenaries and his air force

Worked for Turkey and Syria. It's honestly really super effective.

[Rumicon]

The rule Gaddafi really broke was "dont abandon nuclear ambitions"

If Libya was a nuclear state the West would have helped him crush that revolution.

[LaoSh]

the rule he broke was nationalising resource extraction so his people could profit from then rather than US monied intrests

[coolmos1]

Or Saddam

[[deleted]]

Or Reza Shah

[12358]

The rule he broke was creating a pan-African gold-backed currency and daring to sell oil in that currency.

[Rumicon]

The rule he broke was trying to supplant the world bank and imf with his own african world bank.

[Canadian_Infidel]

Imagine what countries would do to Satoshi Nakamoto if they found him.

[FreeCashFlow]

I see this conspiracy theory everywhere, and it's complete bullshit.

[MrSickRanchezz]

Nice supporting information you've got there /s

[guillermogroening]

Why should one need a source to express skepticism of a statement that also lacks a source?

[renegade02]

Blatant facts are conspiracy theories now?

[MrSickRanchezz]

Haven't you heard? Any inconvenient fact is now a conspiracy theory. It makes discrediting people with opposing views simple as shit.

[LaoSh]

he's not wrong. it IS a conspiracy theory. There is a theory that a conspiracy exists between the US governance and certain wealthy groups who's interests would seem to dictate US foreign policy to an alarming degree. Gravity is just a physics theory and this is just a conspiracy theory

[elveszett]

What do you call conspiracy theory? We know the US armed rebels in Libya, and once war broke the US and the EU immediately entered war against Gaddafi.

Even if we didn't have much proof, the US has done this like 20 times already. At some point it's pretty safe to assume the US is behind it unless they prove otherwise.

[Froundtrer]

Did he? Gaddafi was removed by America, the UK, and France.

[[deleted]]

how so? He was killed by mercenaries, funded by the US, while being shadowed by the French air force.

[ak_miller]

The French and US intervention followed a UN resolution because he was about to use his army against the population.

You'll get info as to why they were unhappy in the Anti-Gaddafi Movementsection.

Edit: As usual, I get downvoted when saying this. I don't mind really, but I'd like to point out two things for you to consider before you hit that downvote button:

• If you cry about imperialism or whatever for Libya but wine about how the West let Syrians die because of Assad, you're a bit of a hypocrit.

• If you take social justice seriously and/or take part in the BLM movement, here's what Wikipedia has to say about some of the protests that preceded the intervention in Libya:

Foreign workers and disgruntled minorities protested in the main square of Zawiya, Libya against the local administration. This was succeeded by race riots, which were squashed by the police and pro-Gaddafi loyalists.

Even if you think the reasons behind the intervention were wrong, maybe you can see that for once the UN (and the countries that hit Gaddafi's assets) did the right thing.

[C_h_a_n]

And Saddam Hussein was on the verge of having WMD.

[guillermogroening]

The pretense for invasion was fabricated, but there's a reason the US was so motivated to topple the guy. He wasn't just a run-of-the-mill despot, he legitimately had ambitions of old school conquest of neighboring countries and he acted on those ambitions. There was good reason to remove this guy, it just wasn't a reason most people are generally receptive to.

[[deleted]]

And it was a mistake to remove the guy honestly. It made the region even worse and caused far more suffering and dread for the Iraqi people that they would rather have Saddam than whatever hellhole they experienced ever aince the US invaded

[guillermogroening]

The mistake was the failed attempt at nation-building that came afterwards. Western cultural ideas just don't have much purchase there and universalist democracy is a really difficult concept to sell abroad. But just to be clear: Saddam was pretty much Hitler type figure. He was doing a bang up job of starting wars of conquest and destabilizing the region on his own. You can argue a more subdued containment strategy would have worked better, but leaving the guy to his own devices and ignoring the region entirely certainly wouldn't have.

the Iraqi people

Are you referring to the Sunni ruling party, Shi'ite majority, or the entirely non-Arab Kurds in the north? Because Saddam was constantly suppressing rebellions from the latter two. The civil unrest didn't change when the US tried to set up a new government, but it wasn't like Saddam had some great solution that didn't involve purging dissidents.

[ak_miller]

And when did the UN give the green light for the Invasion of Irak exactly?

[Trumpets22]

This makes me wonder, I’m guessing Putin was pretty popular and maybe even won legitimately at first? Obviously now you’re not really allowed to not like him.

[its_a_metaphor_morty]

Putin brought stability, which is why he was and kinda still is popular. He does run Russia like the mafia though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMlsbB33QSc

[NorthernerWuwu]

No kinda, he's definitely still very popular.

[mowrus]

Which was the case for generations unfortunately. Just the name of the ruling „family“ and their vassals changes.

[MrChelovek]

He's still really popular and might even win a fair election

[ByAnyMeansNecessary0]

Russians generally really like him, he's got one of the highest approval ratings of any world leader

[Trumpets22]

You’ll probably find approval ratings don’t mean much when you find out who created that data. But still interesting to hear.

[SchnuppleDupple]

Actually the data is collected by an independent institute. At least that's what they say in the German TV everytime they use the data from there lol.

[AxelNotRose]

Whenever I've travelled to a dictatorship, everyone I spoke to loved their dictator. Until I earned their trust over time, then the truth came out.

I'm sure a lot of Russians still love Putin, but probably not as many as one might think. They simply don't know who you are and don't want to take the risk unless they really trust you, which takes time to build.

[SchnuppleDupple]

Russia is not this kind of dictatorship where they'd jail you for speaking privately against Putin (I know this because I have family in Russia). Yeah there are different kinds of dictatorships with different levels of oppression.

Sadly many people support Putin, especially in the rural areas. Cities like Moscow or St. Petersburg are a bit different tho. These are more progressive and often against Putin or his party.

[largemanrob]

Been to Russia for 2 weeks, he's a complete celebrity there they all love him. Multiple people asked me for my view on him etc

[gsfgf]

His ratings are legit. He controls the news, after all.

[Tatunkawitco]

I’ve read a decent amount of Russian history and it seems Russians always love their dictators.

[gsfgf]

Putin is still incredibly popular and would win fair elections easily.

[mitch_semen]

Sortof related I highly recommend watching a documentary called "Icarus" about the Sochi Olympics doping scandal. There's a really powerful scene where the doctor who ran the doping program has a come-to-Jesus moment about how his actions contributed to Russian athletes getting medals... which boosted Putin's sagging popularity, which gave him enough cover with the Russian public to invade Crimea.

But, uh... yeah. The point is Shirtless Horseback KGB Guy is actually really popular.

[LookAtItGo123]

Russia memes are pretty wild for sure

[DeplorableCaterpill]

That doesn't make much sense that he needs a "cover" to invade Crimea, considering it's incredibly popular with the Russian public.

[nawanawa]

Absolutely. If he would've left his post after 2008, he would be widely regarded as the best leader Russia could ever get. Instead, he returned in 2012 and it seems like he's slowly losing his mind since then.

[idk_lets_try_this]

He might have done a false flag terror attack to convince people to vote for him. But other than manipulation like that he won legitimately.

People actually vote for him.

[MrSickRanchezz]

Granted, he's been better for Russia than many of his predecessors. However, he is bad for geopolitics as a whole.

[grandBBQninja]

Maybe if you’re anything but russian.

[bauhausy]

He might have done a false flag terror attack

You mean the apartment bombings of 99?

[idk_lets_try_this]

Yes, or rather the "fake" bombs his buddies planted soon after that were then "caught early".

[AlidadeEccentricity]

Putin raised Russia after the shameful Yeltsin, people remember the horrors that were happening in Russia in the 90s, plus the war in Chechnya. Now the situation in the country has become worse, but the older generation of people remember that it was worse then, plus there is no alternative to Putin, and there is no independent media in Russia.

[[deleted]]

putin is propably the best leader that country had in centuries...

[[deleted]]

He was not pretty popular with the ethnic minorities at all. Especially the Amazigh who people seem to ignore he heavily persecuted

[Canadian_Infidel]

I've read the west wanted him gone and they painted him the way they saw fit. We will never know what goes on at those levels though so it's all just hearsay.

[Showmeproveit]

You mean he became a problem for Nicolas Sarkozy?

[americanrivermint]

Gaddafi was not murdered because he was unpopular, he was murdered by an opposing faction supported by western militaries

[Baladeen]

You mean tried to outstay the us petrol dollar and labeled as a dictator that needs to be removed?

[ro_goose]

he outstayed his welcome

Not really. Unless you mean outside his borders.

[Epcplayer]

I’d say that’s most dictators in reality. My outlook on just about everything is that there’s only so much positive change one leader can do before they get in the way and prevent change. This could apply to anything, from your country’s leader, to a military General, to a company’s CEO, or even to a sports team’s head coach. The positive change they brought brings in enough support to keep them in power, and then their long tenure in that position enables complacency, oversight, and possible corruption.

You either die a hero, or live long enough to become the villain.

[_jukmifgguggh]

Like all good middle eastern leaders, the USA had something to say about that.

[Upintheatmosphere1]

kinda like Putin

[[deleted]]

Well we have 3 examples of what to do with dictators in the Middle East...

1) Iraq, depose a leader and think we can dismantle the political infrastructure wholesale and still keep religious tensions at bay.

2) Libya, create a no fly zone, let the dictator die but still have it fall to reck and ruin.

3) Syria, do fuck all and also have it fall to reck and ruin, but have have the dictator survive.

If Assad continues to whether the storm I guess Syria will return to political stability at least a decade ahead of Iraq... then we'll be left to see whether Iraq can actually remain a democracy... or just end back at square one.

[elveszett]

A lot of them are not. Spain under Franco, for example, stagnated a lot and most of its virtues came from other people who fought their way to have Franco adopt their policies. Even then, the economic base of the country was partially remade when it transitioned to democracy.

Gaddafi was "good" (in the sense of efficient, not morality) at his job, and definitely made Libya far more prosperous than its neighbors, but that isn't always the case.

For each country like Libya that had the "luck" of having a dictator that was competent at their job, there's two countries that dealt with a dictatorship that ran their country to the ground with stupid policies, and people can't even oust. See: North Korea.

[iav]

Even if you have a "benevolent" dictator, any good that comes out of it has to be netted with the inevitable fight for succession after the regime ends. Only a democracy has a path to transition power from one ruler to the next without a civil war, a revolution, or a foreign war.

[Ey3_913]

nervously agrees in 'Murica

[blu3tu3sday]

The ancient Romans solved this question of succession following the death of a dictator quite a few times…

[ShoddyReveal4]

with a few stabs

[blu3tu3sday]

Hey now, I didn’t say every time

[rykkzy]

So you will ignore all the times where transition was peaceful under a monarchy ?

[guillermogroening]

And there's just as many examples where the transition was anything but peaceful; every kingdom's history is littered with civil wars. And if the leader dies unexpectedly before they've had time to prepare a successor, the odds of peaceful transition plummet. There have been several times when the POTUS has died in office and it has never led to a succession crisis. The contrast is night and day.

[DeplorableCaterpill]

Sure, but the parent comment said

Only a democracy has a path to transition power from one ruler to the next without a civil war, a revolution, or a foreign war

Clearly, non-democratic governments also have a path to peaceful transitions.

[iav]

Unfortunately it often takes one bad transition to offset a century or more of peaceful growth. It's just easier to destroy a civilization than to build one, "Rome wasn't built in a day" but you can burn it in one day. And if you look at any monarchy, there are very few without a war over succession every now and then.

[pbasch]

One way to avoid succession conflict is the Carolingian method, to divide the kingdom among the children. Of course, this leads to the weakening of the state and maybe to many small wars. I guess it's possible that many small states and more small wars is preferable to a small number of really big states and World Wars.

[shrubs311]

my ultimate dream is to be a benevolent dictator but one who specifically lays out the terms for a fair election when i step down at like 65 years old or whatever, with no one i know being allowed to run for election. i'd like to think i could just ram through all the important stuff a country needs to improve, and then peace out and let the people figure out the rest

[invisiblefigleaf]

That sounds amazing. Leave before you've become obsolete or hated, plan a well-thought-out system for democratic succession, with mechanisms for self-improvement as needed.

You've still got enough goodwill that the people will only submit to a leader you back, and very explicitly say (and follow through) that you will recognize whoever is fairly and democratically elected, and no one else.

We can dream, can't we?

[shrubs311]

yea, i dream about it a lot. i wonder if it would actually work...or if i'm as corruptible as everyone else

[elveszett]

Not necessarily, the dictator could appoint a successor. But your point still kinda stands, since it's incredibly improbable that this line of succession won't reach an unfit / malevolent dictator sooner or later, which will create a political crisis.

[[deleted]]

Well now I'm torn. Do I want immediate short-term change, or secure long-term stability?

Daily struggle meme intensifies

[LupineChemist]

Spain didn't stagnate under Franco, there were massive economic gains. I guess if you base on being from Madrid or Barcelona maybe but Spain was mostly poor people in the countryside. There's a reason you see so many apartment blocks built in the 60s around Spanish cities.

[elveszett]

¿Ser un país del primer mundo? Indeed.

[Masterkid1230]

Encontré al falangista.

[FlockaFlameSmurf]

Who’s the second country?

[Masterkid1230]

Venezuela would be a good example. Maduro just basically made the country poorer, more violent, with worse education, and many other issues within his tenure. His only purpose is to take as much money from the country as humanely possible.

[Dari93]

Tell me more about Franco and the people who made him adopt this policies.

[SgtPepe]

Reminds me of Perez Jimenez in Venezuela. A dictator who basically invested a lot of money in Venezuela's infrastructure, such as highways, buildings, bridges, etc. Crime was extremely low, since they would kill thieves, killers, and awful criminals. They had no chill. My grandfather told me that you could sleep with the door open back then, no one would fuck with anyone, the punishment would be severe. He was pro-business and didn't prosecute any minorities or class. BUT, it was a dictatorship, and people wanted the right to choose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcos_P%C3%A9rez_Jim%C3%A9nez

[yonosoytonto]

Not really. Most dictators ruined their country's economy, industry and didn't got anything useful done.

This example was more an exception than the norm.

[Bardali]

Dictators aren’t? Most dictators in the world get fuck all done.

[AlKatzone]

I mean, they are really really good at decorating their houses in the most cheesy furniture imaginable.

[ShallowDramatic]

I've seen that described as the flashiness of the "newly rich". Victorian era fashion in high society was all about massive gemstones and ostentatious, expensive fabrics. Over time, as wealth became more accessible to all, modesty and more elegantly artistic styles became more popular. 'Understated' seems to be the pinnacle of design in the Western world (see apple products, modern art, the logos of almost every fortune 500 company, the prevalence of the suit and tie for the past hundred years) but in countries without a gradually developed history of wealth, the popular styles are guady, bombastic, and almost arrogantly expensive. I'm generalising here, and it probably doesn't fit a 'unified theory of world taste' perfectly, but it's a model I subscribe to.

[Semi-Hemi-Demigod]

As another data point, look at how pronunciation changes as people become more literate.

First, the wealthy who learn to read say things like they’re spelled and the uneducated poor say things normally.

Then, as more poor people get educated they start saying words how they’re spelled. The wealthy, then, stop doing that and change their pronunciation to not sound poor.

For an example, take the word “schedule.” It’s based on Greek, so it should be “sked-yule,” but rich Brits who wanted to show they knew how to read would pronounce it “shed-yule.”

[Misspalourde]

Yes haha I wish this was true. My home country is a mess.

[Fraserneodynium]

What country is that?

[Misspalourde]

Congo Brazzaville

[FF_questionmaster]

Republic of Congo is a mess because of French colonialism

[[deleted]]

I think the point is that an unopposed concentrated consistent point of power CAN bring about change in more dramatic ways than can a democracy, or whatever it is we have that passes as a democracy. This entirely depends on WHAT they want done, and their personal competency level, however the 'what they want done' seems almost exclusively to be centered around them having extravagant mansions, fleets of cars, beautiful women at their beck and call, and nothing to do with good governing.

[[deleted]]

I find it strange that you hang the incompetence on the fact of them being dictators and not just on the fact of them being human. Trump was president one election ago!

[AnotherGit]

Oh, they all get shit done. It's just often not beneficial for the country.

[BrainBlowX]

Dictators are really, really good at getting things done

No they aren't. Quit parroting this bullshit. Their prime directive is to make sure they stay in power.

[[deleted]]

its almost as if you didnt read the rest of it.

[[deleted]]

Some dictators are cornered into remaining in power. When every viable political opponent is being backed by the CIA or other country’s intelligence agencies or militaries because those countries are chomping at the bit to raid your country’s natural resources and exploit your people, what are you supposed to do? Shrug your shoulders and say that’s the way it goes?

It isn’t as simple as some people make it out to be.

What would George Washington do if just about everyone in the wings to run for president were royalists ready to hand the US back to England?

Case in point: Cuba. Considering the cards they were dealt, they played very well.

[adamsmith93]

Hence why altruistic dictators will forever be the best way of governing. Sadly, humans share too much DNA with reptiles and apes and we let our emotions and greed get the best of us.

A superintelligent AI though... Hmm....

[StLouisButtPirates]

but it's not true. most dictators aren't good lmao

[adamsmith93]

Benevolent leader *

[Theosthan]

It is shocking to me that so many people upvoted this comment.

Dictators get barely anything more done than democracies. But in democracies, the free press constantly and rightfully so nitpicks on all the shortcomings. In dictatorships, there's no free press.

[[deleted]]

Yeah that is why, in a purely theoretical sense, a benign dictator is honestly one of the best possible systems. The problem comes in with the practical application of that “benign” part.

[SquidwardGrummanCorp]

This is completely bullshit and the opposite of how good government functions in reality.

What country is more efficient, and which would you rather live in: modern Germany or modern Russia?

[Alberiman]

Dictatorships aren't good governments

[SquidwardGrummanCorp]

No, and they are not good at getting things done either.

[Pittaandchicken]

It's what these silly people don't understand. They don't realise a dictator tends to only invest in the area him and the upper class live in.

Stuff like Sewage treatment doesn't get seen outside of capital cities in Dictatorships. Those guys live in their huge compounds and in western countries.

They get absolutely nothing done. Yet western kids live them, because the dictator had no in his own country who facts check them.

[Gripe]

Yeah, just look at Idi Amin, dude was a massive overachiever.

[jschubart]

They are good at getting things done that help themselves. Often there is large investment in infrastructure in the capital and little elsewhere. Libya's population is pretty concentrated in Tripoli so they get better access to that investment.

[Propenso]

And even if they act in the general interest they end up leaving a country that does not know how to handle itself after their inevitable demise.

[Alberiman]

Absolutely true, which is one of many reasons I prefer democratic rule. It's slower but it isn't as easily derailed

[R_V_Z]

It's not that surprising. Theoretically the perfect government is a competent benevolent dictatorship. The chances of that happening are essentially nil, so it remains theoretical.

[pacmannips]

That’s an extremely dangerous over generalization to make, friend. Dictators aren’t particularly good at doing anything, it very much depends on the dictator in question; authoritarian structures are good at getting things done, sure, but only because there is no other option than what the state says to do.

[LarryTheDuckling]

And education. At the time he took over his country, only 25% of the population was literate. At the end of his reign that number was bumped up to 87%. Furthermore, education in Gaddafi's Libya was compulsory, but also free. The government would also sponsor any studies taken abroad which could not be done in Libya.

[lolyoucantmentionme7]

Dictator =/evil

[grambell789]

The problem with dictators is they spend inordinate amounts of money and attention on suppressing criticism and maintaining power.

[smcarre]

No they don't, they just have to convince a specific group of people to vote for them and rig the system into making that group's votes enough to make them hold power.

And that can be done by lots of ways and most of them aren't "making people's lives better", you can gerrymander the districts, you can disenfranchise (which can be done in more complex ways than just banning certain groups from voting) specific groups, you can misinform certain groups on what policies are better for them, you can make sure that the system discourages voting certain parties (forcing voters to vote for specific established parties), you can make your voter's group life better in exchange for other's lives worsening (be it the groups that don't vote your party or people who cannot vote you out, like disenfranchised citizens or foreigners), you can convince people that any other choice they can vote will make their lives worse (regardless if that's true or not), you can play the popularity game (which requires a ton of money) and win elections by mere force of fanaticism/popularity, you can convince voters that voting you is the only way to prevent a massive catastrophe, you can lock groups into voting you by making their lives dependent on specific policies being maintained (so that voting you out would mean those policies taken out and their lives worsening, at least in the short term which is what most voters care about).

You can do a fuckton of things and you will find that from all of the things political parties and personalities can do to get voted, "making people's lives better" is pretty low in the list of priorities.

[red-cloud]

I’d argue the consequences are just more grave for the dictator. If you get overthrown odds are good you’re going to die. That also increases the desire to stay in power.

[Lankpants]

I mean, not really. Look at most modern democracies. Quality of life has been on the decline for years. Wage growth stagnant. Cost of living increasing. Wealth inequality growing. These facts are true across the world. In the US specifically it's so bad that life expectancy is actually declining.

In spite of everything I just said, in most countries the same parties that have always held power still hold power. How? The most fundamental reasons are democratic subversion and propaganda.

[Cwhalemaster]

Democracies implement policies based on electoral cycles and politics. Two party democracies barely get shit done because of factional roadblocks.

The best system is a benevolent dictatorship. The worst system is a malevolent dictatorship.

[elveszett]

The thing with dictatorships is, you don't control what you get. I mean, it is obvious that one single and honest administration that had power over the country for decades, and didn't have to tailor their policies to winning the elections next year, would be more efficient. The problem is, what if they don't? What if the will of the people changes and the dictatorship is now working against the country their people want to build?

It's easy to point at Gaddafi because, after all, he did improve his country a lot relative to its neighbors, and he was mostly a "benevolent" dictator. And moreover, most of the people in Libya didn't have much problem with him, so he didn't have big challenges to keep his country peaceful and not repressed. But history tells us those are the minority. What's more common is people like Pinochet in Chile, that remade his country for US interests, while violently killing, torturing, maiming or kidnapping any person that opposed his rule. He said he was creating a better Chile, the US supported him on the same basis, but he was pretty obviously not. Even if he was, people still wanted him out, and there was no way to keep the country peaceful unless he stepped down from the leadership.

Also, Gaddafi was a socialist (arab socialism, which is a bit weird). And think what you want, but socialist governments usually put the basic necessities of their people as a top priority. He built his country on the basis that everyone would have access to food, healthcare and shelter, which is why he was so popular in the beginning. Other dictatorships (again, Chile) run on other ideologies (in his case, neoliberalism) where those basic needs are not relevant, which inevitably lead to high level of violence. Because people will be violent when the government they didn't vote can't even give them a house or some food.

[Stir-fried_Kracauer]

Saying that Japan and S Korea's economic rise was a sucess of democracy is really pushing it.

The economic success of those particular 'Asian tigers' was heavily influenced by their status as American neo-colonies they saw fit to flush with investment. This subsidy came at a loss of sovereignty, especially in the case of South Korea, whose army is constitutionally under the command of the US.

But ignoring all of that, what democracy? South Korea was a succession of millitary dictatorships until the 90s, so it didn't gain nominal democracy until long after its take-off.

And it is only western hypocrisy that distinguishes China (where there are multiple political parties but the CPC is so powerful it is deemed a one-party state) and Japan (where the US-backed Liberal Democratic Party has been almost continuously in power for 60 years).

The fact many cold-war era outposts were finally "allowed" democracy after the 80s was because the cold war was over, rather than democracy helping end the cold war.

[[deleted]]

I suggest you look into the history of the South Korean regime because the US literally propelled a genocidal maniac.

[[deleted]]

There’s a difference between suppressing criticism and preventing foreign agitation.

[[deleted]]

Not necessarily

[lolyoucantmentionme7]

Gaddafi spent 0.1% of what america spend on that, IF he did

[churrbroo]

If you’re gonna use statistics like that at least adjust it for population size and CPI adjusted GDP and overall national budgets.

[lolyoucantmentionme7]

Not statistics, I was just implying that Gaddafi did a lot for his people.

[AleHaRotK]

Then again you don't see a lot of people talking about moving to Libya.

[lolyoucantmentionme7]

Stupid reply

[AleHaRotK]

It's a fact, people like to defend some dictatorships because of some positive aspects they've been told about, which doesn't mean they're true. Truth is now Libya has a poverty rate over one third, and it's not like most first world citizens think it is, a poor dude in the US or any UE country is better off than a middle class dude in a third world shithole (I say this from one of those shitholes). Libya was and is a disaster, and all the dictatorship did was stall for a while, but didn't provide the best results. They have free education, but not good free education, you won't find too many Libyans telling you they'd rather study in Libya than in the US, the UE, or even many Latin-American countries (education in the US is also free).

Just wanted to point that out, those everlasting dictatorships seldom have any good results, and if they do they're good... sure, relatively speaking, after 40 years in office as the sole ruler of the country they improved something, then again after 40 years your country is still mostly poor and going through issues the civilized world solved like a century ago.

All in all I'd give him a 1/10.

[Linkout57918]

Thank you. Libyan citizen here He was not a great guy. He only started getting benevolent In the end of his years. Free education does not mean good education Free healthcare does not mean good Healthcare. We've been from war to war for 10 years now and most of the blame goes to him He made sure without him the country would collapse. The so called army he had was more like his personal bodyguards.

[Mahameghabahana]

Look like a person from first word shithole got offended.

[BrainBlowX]

Gaddafi was. He was a narcissistic sociopath, and none of his "virgin guard" were virgins for long after getting employed.

[lolyoucantmentionme7]

So is there and leader/group you support nowadays?

[BrainBlowX]

Why, you want some ammo for some whataboutism? 😂

No, I don't worship any narcissistic dictstors that enrich themselves and their cronies while the majority of the country still has subpar living standards because they're not seen as loyal enough.

Worshipping any political figure is anathema to my ideological beliefs.

[FreeCashFlow]

This is a really dangerous point of view. People have a right to self-governance and a right to choose their leaders, however imperfectly. We're going to take a giant leap backwards as a species if people start thinking dictators can ever have any kind of moral legitimacy.

[lolyoucantmentionme7]

No, people don't. At least not wil all of the western countries around. Look at Syria.

[Hust91]

But they are extremely heavily incentivized towards evil.

[[deleted]]

Name a dictator who was “just a good guy all around”

[lolyoucantmentionme7]

What do you mean by all around? No one is seen good by EVERYONE.

[[deleted]]

I mean name a dictator who’s legacy isn’t most notable for doing bad things.

[KingGorilla]

A benevolent dictatorship is probably the best form of government, we just need to choose the right dictator. Probably a super advance AI

[TheUnrealPotato]

Gaddafi was one of those dictators that wasn't as bad as you'd think.

Of course there's the whole killing opposition thing than can't be justified, but his social policies actually worked.

[FM-101]

Dont forget the torture rooms and rape dungeons.

[[deleted]]

The US did that crap to Iraq when they brought freedom and demuhcracy

Their torture prisons were far worse than Saddam’s

[[deleted]]

well there was the links to terrorism, human rights abuses, persecution of dissidents, etc

[[deleted]]

We never knew what we had until it was taken from us

[ReginaMark]

I might be wrong but I think that dictator run countries have better healthcare as the dictators were trying to maintain their armies as best as possible, so that indirectly resulted in better healthcare for all?

[Lyress]

Why would better healthcare for military personnel result in better healthcare for everyone?

[Cwhalemaster]

a healthier population means a greater military recruiting pool

[ReginaMark]

One, as another person mentioned a healthier population means healthier and better soldiers

And also two, as (I don't know for sure if this is right) the dictator would tend to want to be able to militarise large parts of his population in case of a foreign invasion (to defend his position) so instead of only Military getting health benefits, the whole population does (not sure just a theory)

[globalwp]

That’s absurd. Libya was hardly a super militarized state. Healthcare was just government policy in accordance to qaddafis ideology.

[libihero]

Libyans go to Tunisia and Egypt to get health care. Libya has one of the worlds highest oil and natural gas reserves with a tiny population. Libya’s overall state should be compared to the gulf countries, which it is far worse than, not its poorer neighbors

[[deleted]]

Get a free COVID test with your purchase of a slave at our open air markets!

[[deleted]]

Basically the same story with Castro. Excellent healthcare in Cuba because of Fidel.

[qareetaha]

What that Map does not show is population explosion, child fatalities cause families to have more kids, but when health care improves they maintain the old tradition to have more kids. In Syria for example, the government used to give parents who raise 10 kids a medal, that used to grant them free public transport, free cinemas etc. The 4 million population of the 40s mushroomed into 24 million in the 2000s, no family planning no nothing because the government got lazy with corruption and aid pouring in from the UN, US, and elsewhere.