32

Dictator was originally a title from Ancient Rome, which some modern regimes have used. I'm asking who was or is the most recent to do that.

  1. I'm just assuming it was probably a man since most rulers are men, especially prior to the last few decades. Happy to be proved wrong.

  2. This regime must call itself a dictatorship or the leader must call himself a dictator, not just be so called by others.

  3. It must have been in effective control of an area approximately as big as Luxembourg, for at least 2 months.

ti7
  • 103
  • 3
Ne Mo
  • 14,092
  • 5
  • 53
  • 116

11 Answers11

55

"Was" is the wrong tense used here.

The basic task of the nation in the years to come is to concentrate its effort on socialist modernization. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, the Chinese people of all nationalities will continue to adhere to the people's democratic dictatorship and…

— Constitution of The People's Republic of China — Preamble

My guesses here not to be proven by linked evidence include: that China is roughly a bit larger than Luxembourg, the "at least two months in power" criterion is fulfilled for the ruling party there.

This is not over, and you will be happy.

LаngLаngС
  • 80,978
  • 9
  • 282
  • 356
  • 9
    you will be happy – MCW Nov 08 '21 at 14:02
  • 11
    I am moderately happy. I feel however that Xi Jinping would probably complain if someone called him a dictator, and try and say that dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean dictator like Robespierre. And note it says 'democratic dictatorship' whatever that's supposed to mean. However I've been on the site long enough to know it will land badly if I tag 'somewhere that calls itself a dictatorship, but not dictatorship of the proletariat' on to the end of my question at this point. So slack your rope, O hangman. – Ne Mo Nov 08 '21 at 14:12
  • 13
    @NeMo Well, note how not even AH called himself dictator, but 'leader & chancellor', eg Pinochet just named himself President, in Libyi Colonel seems to have a better ring, while Ugandans must have been aware that 'dictator' is an ill-defined term, after hearing "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular" … – LаngLаngС Nov 08 '21 at 14:20
  • 7
    @LаngLаngС: Didn't you miss "King of Scotland"? – Pieter Geerkens Nov 08 '21 at 14:38
  • 1
    @PieterGeerkens Perhaps indeed, idk for sure? Seems his title was the long string above, while he also claimed – officially – to be the 'uncrowned king' of the Scots… But what gives? Nowadays, I'm sure, he'd chose 'modeler of effectiveness' and 'advisor to the CDC' instead? Or in the same league: pharao, director of the asylum, Vanquisher of the CCCP's Faux-Xi? Just remember: Stay silent & Protect the Nationalist Hysteria Scapegoat; or whatever your local insane motto du jour might be. – LаngLаngС Nov 08 '21 at 15:04
  • 4
    Albeit the Roman dictatorship was not democratic, it was nonetheless very Republican. – James Nov 08 '21 at 17:26
  • @NeMo Xi Jinping is president for life. That doesn't count? – Jos Nov 09 '21 at 02:59
  • 3
    @Jos While the state itself declares as I quote above, indeed I'd agree that Mr Winnie Puh himself doesn't count, as he seems to be easily offended being called D & doesn't do so himself. – LаngLаngС Nov 09 '21 at 09:53
  • 9
    @Jos No, because he does not call himself a dictator. – Ne Mo Nov 09 '21 at 12:57
  • @NeMo: I assume that a “democratic dictatorship” means that the people vote for their leader (the “democratic” part), but there's only one name on the ballot (the “dictatorship” part). – dan04 Nov 10 '21 at 00:10
  • 8
    I think this "people's democratic dictatorship" is a variation of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is a widespread term in socialist/communist theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat). However this implies some degree of democracy (even if you only have a choice between different members of the same party), so it's not what you would normally call a dictatorship - although it can easily become one, such as Romania under Ceausescu, the USSR under Stalin etc. etc. – rob74 Nov 10 '21 at 08:07
  • 1
    @rob74 Marx used the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" to describe an interim phase between capitalism and communism, during which a "vanguard"government is formed of officials loyal to the revolution, whose job is to guide country toward communism. In Orwell's Animal Farm the pigs play that role, eventually reducing the ten commandments of the revolution to just one which read "All animals are equal" - before adding the words "but some are more equal than others". – WS2 Nov 11 '21 at 16:15
  • I concur with @WS2 that dictatorship here is the reference is to the Marxist term, that is it doe snot ahve exactly the same meaning as intended in the OP. I think teh answer is still valuable, but could benefit from explaining the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. – Roger V. Jan 13 '22 at 10:44
  • Old issue, but as I suspected Xi doesn't like being called a dictator. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/21/joe-biden-calls-chinese-president-xi-jinping-dictator-antony-blinken-china-visit – Ne Mo Jun 21 '23 at 09:10
42

Since 2019 the El Salvadorian President Nayib Armando Bukele Ortez is in office.

The current developments were characterised as

"precursor to a dictatorship," and a representative from the FMLN stating that the state is serving only one person, referring to Bukele. […]

Despite being described as an autocrat and an authoritarian, and despite self-proclaiming himself as the "Dictator of El Salvador," the "coolest dictator in the world," and the "Emperor of El Salvador," Bukele has retained a high approval rating throughout his presidency.

Some might say that he used this style "ironically". Fact remains: he called himself that way.

LаngLаngС
  • 80,978
  • 9
  • 282
  • 356
35

Alexander Lukashenko has been the president of Belarus since 1994. He called himself "the last and only dictator in Europe" in a 2012 interview.

Q: Some Western politicians call you a dictator. What is your reaction?

A: I ask myself what is a dictator? I don’t understand. It is some kind of terrible person, a bad person. But I am not frightening, I am not a bad person at all. ... I am the last and only dictator in Europe and indeed there are none anywhere else in the world.

However, I think the government of Belarus does not formally refer to itself as a dictatorship despite its autocratic behavior.

Michael Seifert
  • 3,048
  • 21
  • 24
  • 3
    I think you or the translator misintepreted his words. He is likely saying he envies his own image in western propaganda. Something like sarcasm. – Anixx Nov 11 '21 at 18:27
30

Perhaps that my own country (Portugal) is the answer. In 1926 we had a military revolution and in 1928 one the leaders of that revolution, general Óscar Carmona, was elected president of Portugal. The period from 1928 until 1933 was called by the political leadership of the country as Ditadura Nacional (which means “National Dictatorship”). It turns out that, unlike some of the other leaders of the 1926 revolution, general Carmona never intended to reinstate Democracy in Portugal.

Having said this, I am not aware of any occasion in which general Carmona described himself as “Dictator”.

In 1933, a new constitution was approved and the Portuguese regime became the “Estado Novo” (meaning “New State”).

José Carlos Santos
  • 4,632
  • 5
  • 30
  • 52
  • This is the best answer, as we can be pretty confident this wasn't just lost in translation. – Ne Mo Nov 11 '21 at 23:53
  • Well, the answer seems simply wrong though. As pointed out, there are still dictators (self-proclaimed such as Alexander Lukashenko) and others that clearly fit the definition – Mayou36 Nov 12 '21 at 14:28
  • 1
    After his inauguration George W Bush made a joke that a dictatorship would be fine as long as he was the dictator. Not very funny, but it wouldn't count because he did not think of himself as one. It's hard to tell from translation, but the Belarus and El Salvador answer seem to be similar (unfunny) jokes. On the other hand, Carmona et al were clearly not trying to be funny when they called their political system the national dictatorship. – Ne Mo Nov 14 '21 at 19:30
13

The Centrocaspian Dictatorship ruled from July to September 1918 in and around the city of Baku in current Azerbaijan. This anti-Soviet country was not recognised by any other and soon overrun/replaced by the Azerbaijan People's Republic. As far as I know, no more recent state (recognised or unrecognised) had the word dictatorship in the name of the country.

gerrit
  • 3,754
  • 1
  • 22
  • 39
  • 1
    As an actual name for the whole shebang, the state itself, this is quite remarkable. My endorsement for this A. – LаngLаngС Nov 10 '21 at 18:07
  • 2
    A small nitpick: Soviet Union did not exist in 1918, so the correct description would have been "anti-communist" or "anti-bolshevik" or something like that. – Moishe Kohan Nov 11 '21 at 18:09
  • @MoisheKohan anti-Soviet also would be OK. – Anixx Nov 11 '21 at 18:29
  • @Anixx: Yes, indeed. I think, by that time, the last Soviets controlled by anti-bolshevik forces were gone. – Moishe Kohan Nov 11 '21 at 18:31
  • @MoisheKohan simply, the country was known as Soviet Russia or Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic. – Anixx Nov 11 '21 at 18:32
  • 1
    @MoisheKohan Thanks, I wasn't aware the Soviet Union was founded only five years after the Russian Revolution. I have edited my answer. – gerrit Nov 11 '21 at 21:51
  • 1
    Agreed, well done for finding somewhere that had dictatorship in the title of the country at such a late date. – Ne Mo Nov 13 '21 at 10:05
9

Marxists have been using the term dictatorship of the proletariat in the positive sense long after the word become an grave insult for Western liberals. In the USSR, it was not until 1934 when XVII Congress of CPSU proclaimed that the socialism has won and the need for dictatorship of the proletariat is over. But it still was mentioned (as a matter of history, but still positively) in the USSR Constitutions of 1936 and 1977 and in the Party documents. Of course it did not mean in any way that the rule became less dictatorial - it was just the apparent change of rhetoric of the ruling party in the USSR in the 1930s.

In other countries, as shown in LangLangC's answer, the communists may keep the traditional rhetoric.

Note that ideologically (and in sharp contrast with the practice) Marxists were never fond of personal dictatorship, they always pointed out the difference between the good dictatorship of the proletariat and the evil dictatorships in the capitalist countries, and of course did not tolerate when anyone called their leaders for dictators.

jmster
  • 564
  • 3
  • 6
  • 1
    Very good and quite fast – MCW Nov 08 '21 at 15:58
  • 1
    Х Congress was in 1921. The XVII Congress in 1934 was called "Съезд победителей" (congress of victors/winners) and did *NOT* abolish dictatorship of the proletariat in any way shape or form. If anything, it strengthened the role of the state. – sds Nov 08 '21 at 17:21
  • 3
    Thank you @sds, of course I meant the XVII congress. Anyway, the question is not about when the dictatorship ended, but when the dictators stopped to call themselves so. By the end of 1920s USSR became a party dictatorship, so d. of the proletariat was already a misnomer. So in 1930s this the official documents started to downplay the role of workers and peasants, instead promoting the ruling role of the Party (which was already overwhelming in practice, but not yet fully institutionalized). In this sense1930s .is a landmark, after that the elite did not call their rule a dictatorship – jmster Nov 08 '21 at 17:51
  • 4
    I don't think that term was intended to designate anything like the kind of governing system we mean when we say "dictator." Basically the idea seems to be that the proletariat (the entire lower class of society) is the one giving orders, and nobody else has any say. That's (again in theory) a big difference from "this one dude is the one giving orders...". I think one can argue it counts since the d-word is used, but its being used in a more metaphorical sense, not straight with no chaser. – T.E.D. Nov 08 '21 at 19:59
  • @T.E.D. That's really the problem with this ill-defined and too 'liberally used' word and its applied usage: is one of a Kim a dictator in a dictatorship? Most'd say yes? Is any Saud to be called that way? Never in public (state) conversation. But Assad's are 'D' again. Where is the diff in style & method? Some branding & ideology to nebulize reality, sure. Not materially. Same goes with 'rebels' vs 'terrorists'. Main exonymic criterion for this speech policy on othering: bein the evil other. Prime distinction in practical reality: US (read: 'our') ally, or not (or some pundit's pet…). – LаngLаngС Nov 08 '21 at 21:45
  • @LаngLаngС - Honestly, I don't think the word is that badly defined. There's a certain political and political legitimacy structure it implies, and any state can be seen at a glance to qualify or not qualify based on its own political and political legitimacy structure. (And yes, Kim's North Korea totally qualifies. Saudis are more complicated because their political and political legitimacy structure is more complicated, which is why we usually say "Monarchy" instead) – T.E.D. Nov 09 '21 at 14:10
  • Half an hour or so ago I left what I considered a perfectly valid comment concerning Orwell's Animal Farm, and his treatment therein of the matter of Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat. As Animal Farm is considered by many political and literary scholars to have been a masterpeice it seemed perfectly proper in a scholarly debate to draw upon it in discussion. One does not have to agree nor disagree with Orwell's views. But my comment seems to have been eliminated without even the courtesy of an explanation. Is this site a genuine intellectual forum or isn't it? – WS2 Nov 11 '21 at 16:53
  • I think it was not mentioned in the 1977 constitution. – Anixx Nov 11 '21 at 18:30
  • @Anixx it was in the first sentence of the preamble: Великая Октябрьская социалистическая революция, совершенная рабочими и крестьянами России под руководством Коммунистической партии во главе с В.И.Лениным, свергла власть капиталистов и помещиков, разбила оковы угнетения, установила диктатуру пролетариата... and then once again: Выполнив задачи диктатуры пролетариата, Советское государство стало общенародным.... – jmster Nov 11 '21 at 19:23
3

@José Carlos Santos mentioned a period of military dictatorship, which is probably the most correct answer.

Nonetheless, the Dictatorship of Garibaldi (Italy), also answers your question, as he did call himself a dictator, as seen in the Decreto col quale il Generale Garibaldi assume la Dittatura in Sicilia

It should also be noted that those answers that mention the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat are erroneous if you want dictatorship as a political system. In Marxism, it is termed dictatorship because the state apparatus, as an instrument of class oppression, is used to exercise control by a social class over other social class(es). Thus, the existence of the opposite dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. As such, the term denotes a type of state of affairs in society, and not a political system. Hence, according to its proponents, the existence of, for example, the term democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, where democratic is used to refer to the political system, and dictatorship of the proletariat to the state of affairs.

linuxwyvern
  • 31
  • 2
  • If by democratic one means western-style liberal democracy, then the dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently undemocratic - it means suppressing rights of a part of the population (possibly more than a half of it - bourgeoisie, peasants, intelligentsia, etc.) According to Marx, liberal democracy, based on equal rights, is a political system designed to justify capitalism, for equal rights cannot guarantee real equality. His alternative is working councils (soviets in Russian), so that the power belongs to those who are actually involved in the production process. – Roger V. Oct 06 '23 at 07:27
3

This may be not exactly an answer, but it may be useful. I have come upon a case of a leader's use of “Dictator” in 1898, later than Garibaldi, and as an official title, rather than a more informal self-description as has been shown of Presidents Lukashenko and Bukele of modern Belarus and El Salvador: Dictator Emilio Aguinaldo of the Philippines (Wikipedia). Wikipedia cites the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, which says that:

  • Aguinaldo led a “dictatorial government” from 24 May 1898, using the title “Dictator” until he changed it to “President” on 23 June 1898;
  • “By July 1898, the Filipinos liberated the provinces of Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Pampanga, most of Bulacan and the suburbs surrounding Manila”.[1]

The first four provinces — Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, and Pampanga — have, within their modern borders (as of 2007),[2] a total of 867 424 hectares, or 8674.24 km², more than 3.35 times the 2586 km² of Luxembourg.[3]

However, with Aguinaldo's time as "Dictator" lasting from 24 May to 23 June, he fell one day short just over 50% short of the two-month minimum, and he didn't spend all of that time in control of all four of those provinces. On the other hand, if it is acceptable that the leader call himself a dictator at one time and control a Luxembourg-sized area for two months at a different time, then Aguinaldo may qualify still.

Someone familiar with Philippine history (which I am not) may be able to provide more detail (and maybe better sources than an understandably patriotic Web page of the Philippine government).

References
user570286
  • 131
  • 3
  • Excellent answer, thank you. – Ne Mo Jan 12 '22 at 12:44
  • By the way, I would have preferred to let common sense define 'control', 'leader', 'country' and other everyday words, but I knew that if I didn't give an arbitrarily limited definition of them, the question would be closed. I'm glad you decided to answer the question. – Ne Mo Jan 13 '22 at 15:52
  • From 24 May to 23 June is a day short of one month. – bof Jan 17 '22 at 05:11
0

Douglas MacArthur as Supreme Commander of Allied Powers in Japan after WWII. President Truman gave him absolute power over Japan.

He might be described as a shogun (military dictator). Actually, according to wikipedia, "The Japanese subsequently gave MacArthur the nickname Gaijin Shogun ('The foreign Shogun') but not until around the time of his death in 1964".

In fact, he was a dictator in the roman way. Called to serve for the country and retire after completed the job.

Santiago
  • 4,901
  • 20
  • 27
0

I'd like to put forth another example of a country's current leader calling himself a dictator or rather his (plans for the) country a dictatorship:

During an official visit to Vienna in 2014, Vladimir Putin was asked what his plans for Russia looked like. He smiled and answered in German:

Diktatur.

then he (seemingly) hastily injected:

Aber gute Diktatur.

(Dictatorship. … But good dictatorship.)

Vladimir Putin is known to be 'fluent' in German. On one hand, fluent (without apostrophes) may be a bit exaggerated, as high ranking people typically get more credit than actually deserved. On the other hand, according to his German Wikipedia article, he served as interpreter for Boris Jelzin in meetings with Helmut Kohl.
However his injection leaves little doubt that he knew what he was saying and how people could take it.

At the time, it was commented as him joking about his strong man image. I don't quite recall, if it was also around his official speech in German parliament (Bundestag) in 2001 or during consultations with German company leaders. He might have pulled that 'joke' multiple times.

I remember quite vividly that I saw video clips of both occasions in a documentary about Putin that analyzed his reign.

LLewellyn Cuthbertson
  • 653
  • 2
  • 4
NoAnswer
  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
    This would be improved as an answer if you could find some supporting references. – Steve Bird Feb 22 '23 at 17:43
  • I'm aware of that. But as I said, "I don't have anything quotable at hand". My only starting point, would be to try and find an hour-long documentary in which this was like a one minute excerpt of. – NoAnswer Feb 22 '23 at 17:48
  • I was able to track down the date of the visit to German parliament: 25.09.2001 – NoAnswer Feb 22 '23 at 18:07
-2

I would assume Caesar.

Rome was, I believe, the last state that had this as an official title, so he would've called himself a dictator.

It used to be a title for a limited amount of time. The citizens would elect one to meet a crisis. He did want to become dictator for life, but as we know, this wasn't met with general approval, and specific action was taken to end his life (and dictatorship).

LаngLаngС
  • 80,978
  • 9
  • 282
  • 356
bytepusher
  • 97
  • 1
  • 3
    You might want to review this answer after looking at the other answers. There are clearly later examples than Caesar. – Lars Bosteen Nov 10 '21 at 02:59
  • Leader "must call himself a dictator". Not the case for the accepted answer. The other answer don't mention it, or explicitly state there's no evidence of that. You may want to review this question before downvoting – bytepusher Nov 11 '21 at 00:17
  • 1
    Please note that I'm not one of those who downvoted your answer. Also, deficiencies in one or more answers do not justify deficiencies in other answers. Ortez seems to meet the criteria. – Lars Bosteen Nov 11 '21 at 04:10
  • Note that the Q asks "…or…", so an objection towards (the accepted) an answer based on one of two possibilities not matching seems invalid, especially since the second of the options of the Q's "or" is fulfilled there? – LаngLаngС Nov 11 '21 at 15:59