New research published in Nature Communications by a team of US researchers shows that “benevolence dictatorship” was a common ideology in the Communist era in several countries.
The authors analysed the ideology of some countries, and found that while there were many examples of the term in government documents, it was not the only one.
“It’s a bit like the Soviet Union, where a dictator had to be a ‘good guy’,” lead author Shigeki Sakamoto, from the University of California, Berkeley, told Nature Communications.
“There’s a common belief that this is good for the country.”
“It doesn’t mean we like it, it doesn’t change the way we live or anything like that,” he added.
The paper, “Benevolent Dictatorship as a Conceptual Phenomenon in Modern Communist Countries: A Study of the Ideology of Two Countries,” was published in the journal Science.
The researchers used a database of documents produced in the communist era in five countries – Brazil, China, Cuba, Russia and the United States.
They analysed the ideologies of all countries and found there were examples of “berevolence dictators”, including a number of government policies that promoted human rights and democracy, such as universal healthcare and environmental protection.
“This shows there are plenty of examples of benevolent dictators in the 20th century, but the idea is very different than the Soviet regime,” said lead author Sakamoto.
“The Communist regimes of the 1950s and 60s didn’t have benevolent dictators.”
The researchers also analysed the number of laws that the regimes adopted and found the Communist governments had a strong anti-corruption stance and “banned corruption”, as well as the use of economic sanctions, social control measures and other restrictions.
“These are very different from the policies that we would expect from a dictatorship today,” Sakamoto told BBC News.
The new paper shows “besevolence dictator” is not just an ideology in communist nations, but also a “philosophical concept” in other countries, including in Britain, which he said was the only country in the world where it is common.
“Berevolent dictators” are “a good idea,” Sakomo said.
“A lot of the time, when you have a benevolent dictator, you have some kind of rule of law or some kind to support human rights.”
But it’s also a kind of a kinder, gentler dictatorship.
“The research has “shown that a benevolent dictatorship can be the foundation of a democracy”, Sakamoto said.
The concept of a benevolent authoritarian state may not be a new one, he added, as “a benevolent dictatorship is a concept that emerged in the mid-20th century in the United Kingdom”.
“But it has not been seen as the ultimate form of government.” “
It seems to be the political form of authoritarian rule that can be found in authoritarian regimes,” said Professor Mark Weisbrot from the Open University, who is not involved in the research.
“But it has not been seen as the ultimate form of government.”
In other words, a benevolent dictators is an example of “a regime that does not necessarily have dictatorship”, Weisburt said.
In a separate study, published in 2016, Professor Michael Ruppert from the National University of Singapore found that the term “bureaucratic dictatorship” had a much more positive connotation than “government dictatorship”.
“We found that people who use the term ‘bureauCratic dictatorship’ are less likely to use it in a positive way than people who say ‘government dictatorship’,” he told BBC Trending.
“People using the term government dictatorship are more likely to be concerned about social inequality, environmental degradation and so on.”
“In some respects, it’s a pretty benign dictatorship,” Professor Ruppart added.
“You have a bunch of bureaucrats who are doing their jobs.
You have a handful of politicians, and the bureaucracy is very powerful.”
The findings from the new study have “concluded that, at least for the first time, there is a very strong connection between the use and interpretation of the terms ‘berelism’ and ‘besevilism’,” said Rupperman.
“That there is an association between those terms is consistent with a priori the possibility that some of the political values associated with those terms are associated with more positive forms of authoritarianism.”
“We can’t prove the association, but it does provide a lot of insight into the political meanings of these terms,” he said.
For example, “bespoke democratic government” was more likely than “befulvist dictatorship”, “democratic government” and “dictatorship” to be associated with “belligerent authoritarianism”.
“In many respects, they are similar,” Professor Weisbrut said.
He said the “bespecial concern of these researchers is that they do not want to go back to the past and see if there was a connection with the