Stereotypical authoritarian leaders in history tend to do opulent, egocentric things like building statues of themselves everywhere or writing songs about how cool they are and making kids in school sing them. What are some examples of modest dictators whose regimes skipped that type of pomp and circumstance?
Ho Chi Minh!
While in power, he lived in a small house, didn’t own many things, always lived super modestly and was generally never interested in his personal benefit. He devoted his whole existence to the Vietnamese people, which he freed from french colonialism and US imperialism.
He always remained uncomfortable with the growing personality cult, with large monuments and honorings. He also declined many gifts, like one time a fancy piano, as he thought it’s crazy to transport it over the given distance (but I forgot the whole story or mixing something up now).
He also specifically wished to be cremated, and his ash to be scattered across the country (which didnt happen, everyone can stare at his embalmed body in a huge mausoleum). Today he is worshipped almost like a god, and I really kinda (almost) get it.
I think Ho Chi Minh was probably one of the greatest humans ever. But of course not perfect, not immune to failure and mistakes. Here is a photograph of him crying while apologizing to the people for his mistakes.
Keep in mind the Ho had little actual power for MUCH of the time he was in power. He lost a lot of de facto control to Lê Duẩn quite early on in the war with the US in 1959 or so.
He was a good figure head. And definitely desperately wanted unification. But Lê Duẩn ran a lot of the show and held most of the power.
Kekkonen of Finland, if you stretch the definition of dictator a bit.
Juan Vicente Gómez in Venezuela. Ruled 26 years. Lived and ruled without luxuries, hard worker, smart, could be cruel.
Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore is probably the dictionary definition of benevolent dictator.
In Jugoslavia most people saw Tito as a benevolent dictator. Once he died Jugoslavia fell apart. Obviously the history behind it is a bit more complex, but most people I have talked to in those countries saw him as a “good leader” that lead the country in a direction the people appreciated. Propaganda still played a big role in it and people with more historical knowledge will be able to comment a bit better in this topic. But he is the only one who comes to my mind.
