I questionise having Vova (guess who
) as he wasn't exactly a dictator in the real sense of the word as he didn't have all the power after all. He was backed up the politburo. He was the visible man, but he was still sharing his power. During the era of Stalinism he was iconised as Stalin wanted (that's what Lenin didn't want). Unfortunately he's seen as the only man who had the power, but actually he was just the visible chairman and not the grand dictator.
Anyway, I voted for Lenin, Castro, Musharraf and Quaddaffi.
Castro - Indeed we westeners look often badly at him and especially USA hates his regime, but after all the cons are less liberties and more restricted Freedom of Speech, but after all there hasn't been any larger massacres or starvation. The socialist regime has guaranteed work (maybe not the best salaries, but at least you have work), education (maybe not the best, but at least people have the necessary basic education) and basic health care (this has been hampered by the boycotte, but overall the socialist regime has guaranteed at least some health services for the majority of the population, unlike in "democratic" African countries). Maybe the lack of democracy is a minus, but at least the Cubans survive.
Qaddaffi - Has been suspected for links to terrorism and bombings like in Lockerbee, but nothing worse really. The country isn't starving and no other major treaths. The old man seems to be even interested in the development of an African union which isn't bad. Maybe I should try to invent some else bad to say, but the terrorism links are one. Otherwise it seems to be a quite working dictatorship that has been hampered by the sanctions.
Musharraf - Militarty dictator. Maybe trying to step down for giving away to real democracy like the military leadership in Nigeria did; however they did that too on a longer term. Right now it seems somewhat good, expect that there's the tension with India.
BTW...
My latest theory is that the top Indian leadership isn't after all much better than the Pakistani government. They're much better covered, but they still seem to be ruling with militaristic plans (those who know the documentary about the Indian nuclear weapon program understand this claim more better) and in general seem to have a very hardline oligarchic foreign policy.

Anyway, I voted for Lenin, Castro, Musharraf and Quaddaffi.
Castro - Indeed we westeners look often badly at him and especially USA hates his regime, but after all the cons are less liberties and more restricted Freedom of Speech, but after all there hasn't been any larger massacres or starvation. The socialist regime has guaranteed work (maybe not the best salaries, but at least you have work), education (maybe not the best, but at least people have the necessary basic education) and basic health care (this has been hampered by the boycotte, but overall the socialist regime has guaranteed at least some health services for the majority of the population, unlike in "democratic" African countries). Maybe the lack of democracy is a minus, but at least the Cubans survive.
Qaddaffi - Has been suspected for links to terrorism and bombings like in Lockerbee, but nothing worse really. The country isn't starving and no other major treaths. The old man seems to be even interested in the development of an African union which isn't bad. Maybe I should try to invent some else bad to say, but the terrorism links are one. Otherwise it seems to be a quite working dictatorship that has been hampered by the sanctions.
Musharraf - Militarty dictator. Maybe trying to step down for giving away to real democracy like the military leadership in Nigeria did; however they did that too on a longer term. Right now it seems somewhat good, expect that there's the tension with India.
BTW...
My latest theory is that the top Indian leadership isn't after all much better than the Pakistani government. They're much better covered, but they still seem to be ruling with militaristic plans (those who know the documentary about the Indian nuclear weapon program understand this claim more better) and in general seem to have a very hardline oligarchic foreign policy.
Comment