Ken Hurley
Defining dictators and tyrants throughout history is a subjective and value-oriented exercise. What one person views as a dictatorship or tyrannical, another person may view as strong leadership. The difference between a dictator and a tyrant is seen largely through the degree of cruelty and force used by each to control the populace. Tyrants use force wantonly and indiscriminately. Dictators tend to be more restrained. Labeling someone as a tyrant is a human judgment. However, tyrants tend to have similar traits that are widely criticized for authoritarian practices, human rights abuses, deception, and suppression of dissent through strong-armed, violent, and deadly means. Both dictators and tyrants have control of the military and other security forces — including police and intelligence agencies. They manipulate information. They spread disinformation and propaganda. They have control over resources, taxes, and the distribution of wealth, which makes it easy to reward loyalists and punish opponents. The dictators’ and tyrants’ followers appear cult-like to a reasonable observer. The unquestioning loyalty and obedience by their followers feeds the lust for more power.
Tyrants are not created suddenly. A tyrant usually begins as a dictator. Their rise to tyrannical power often is years in the making. After a strong consolidation of power, a dictator may morph into a tyrant. When they achieve their goal of the “all powerful,” their reign over the populace may last decades or longer.
To resist and topple a tyrant is extremely difficult, often met with exile, imprisonment, or death by those who try. Broad local, national, and international coalitions are necessary to unite diverse groups with shared grievances against the tyrant. These coalitions should transcend ethnic, religious, or class divisions and demonstrate a solidarity of resolve, seeking diplomatic pressure, sanctions, and condemnation of tyrannical abuses. The disinformation barrage of the tyrant must be met with an alternative truthful narrative targeting the tyrant’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities.
The risks of removing a dictator or tyrant are often too large politically, physically, or both. It is often more pragmatic to leave them in office. However, organized resistance is critical when defeating a tyrant or a dictator. Decisions must be made in solidarity. Unison is essential.
Non-violent resistance utilizes methods such as civil disobedience, boycotts, strikes, and peaceful protests to challenge a dictator’s or tyrant’s authority. These methods, while passive, can be effective in mobilizing popular support and exposing the regime’s inhumanity. However, their success depends heavily on the regime’s willingness to minimize violent repression. Armed resistance is the next level of resistance when non-violent methods fail or are deemed insufficient. This is most certainly a deadly approach and a method of last resort. The success of armed resistance depends on a smart, cunning, high-tech, high-intel, approach, sufficient popular support, the strength of the resistance forces, and the willingness of external forces to join the cause and provide support. Or, perhaps toppling a tyrant merely takes the betrayal of today’s version of a bodyguard — persons within the inner circle of trust willing to die for the cause of ending tyranny.
There are instances when a dictator or a tyrant actually accepted the results of losing an election. This is rare. Augusto Pinochet of Chile is an example. He came to power in 1973 through a military coup d’etat with the help of the United States. He toppled Salvador Allende, who was a democratically elected Marxist. True to the dictator/tyrant profile, after Pinochet was installed he killed or forced into exile thousands of people from his political opposition. He suspended the constitution and the legislative branch and imposed strict censorship and curfew laws. However, in 1988 he unexpectedly lost an election. Pinochet accepted the results and handed over power to a civilian government two years later. Pinochet lived a long life, likely the result of a brokered deal that ended his reign of power and offered him a viable place to go.
The following is an incomplete compilation of tyrants throughout history and today.
Nero (Roman Empire) 54-68 AD. His reign ended by assassination, preceded by widespread revolt and civil war. Subsequent to his death came what is known as the Year of the Four Emperors and eventually the establishment of the Flavian dynasty, which was more stable, but still an empire.
Caligula (again the Roman Empire) 37-41 AD. Assassinated by a bodyguard. Claudius then ascended to the throne (still an empire!).Ivan the Terrible (Russia) 1533-1584. His reign ended by his death. Years of instability and internal conflict followed, which led to the Romanov dynasty (autocratic, but comparatively evolving).
Genghis Khan (Mongol Empire) 1206-1227. His reign ended by his death. The empire continued under successors, but fragmented over time into various “Khanates,” eventually absorbed or replaced by other powers.
Adolf Hitler (Nazi Germany) 1933-1945. It took another world war against Germany to end his reign and his quest for imperialistic world domination. He died by suicide. His reign was followed by Allied occupation and the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany (a democratic republic) and German Democratic Republic (a communist state).
Joseph Stalin (Soviet Union) 1924-1953. His reign ended by his death, after which a power struggle within the Communist Party followed, eventually leading to Khrushchev’s ascension to power (still a communist state, but with some reforms).
Pol Pot (Cambodia) 1975-1979. His reign ended as a result of the Vietnamese invasion; he was overthrown by the Vietnamese army. His reign was followed by a Vietnamese-backed government, which eventually transitioned to a more authoritarian, but less radically genocidal regime. Kim Jong-un (North Korea) 2011-Present. Potential for a more open or less totalitarian regime, but highly unpredictable.
Bashar al-Assad (Syria) 2000 – 2024. His regime was overthrown by “Syrian Rebels” and international intervention. Following his rule there is a potential for a transitional government or a continued civil war.
Vladimir Putin (Russia) 1999-Present. His regime is met with internal opposition, economic sanctions, and international pressure. What type of Russian government will come after Putin is gone is uncertain. There is potential for a more democratic or possibly a less autocratic system.
A few other world leaders known as either a dictator or a tyrant include Benito Mussoilini, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Idi Amin Mahamat Déby, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Daniel Ortega Saavedra, Manuel Noriega, Serdar Berdimuhamedow, Ariel Henry, Fidel Castro, Miguel Díaz-Canel, and many more.
Can you name another current world leader who has the traits of a dictator or a tyrant? Does anyone come to mind?
The future remains uncertain and highly speculative. The systems that replace tyrannical regimes are not always democratic or just. They can be equally or even more oppressive, or simply different forms of authoritarianism.
