mykichen

What happened when these 6 dictators took over - Stephanie Honchell SmithAccording to legend, the ancient Roman statesman Cincinnatus was plowing his fields when news arrived that the Aequi, Rome’s powerful enemy to the east, had invaded.据传说，古罗马政治家辛辛那图斯正在犁田时，消息传来，罗马在东方的强大敌人埃基人已经入侵。Rome was in need of swift, decisive action, and the senate had chosen him to serve as dictator, with absolute power over the military and government.罗马需要迅速、果断的行动，元老院选举他为独裁者，对军队和政府拥有绝对的权力。Cincinnatus set down his plow, took control, and in a matter of weeks, saved Rome.辛辛那图斯放下犁，控制了一切，在短短几周内，拯救了罗马。This story reinforces the myth of the “benevolent dictator”—the idea of a leader who holds absolute power, yet only uses it for the common good, to address problems efficiently, and create a just regime.这个故事强化了“仁慈的独裁者”的神话——拥有绝对权力的领导者，只将其用于共同利益，有效地解决问题，并建立一个公正的政权。But can a truly benevolent dictator exist in today’s world? Nations established modern democracies to safeguard against the potentially destructive whims of a single individual.但是，当今世界能存在一个真正仁慈的独裁者吗？各国建立了现代民主国家来维护反对单个人的潜在破坏性异想天开。When functioning properly, democracies enable a society to be freer, and provide stability by protecting against corruption and the abuse of power.当运作正常时，民主政体使社会更加自由，并通过防止腐败和滥用权力来提供稳定。This is accomplished by holding regular, free, and fair elections, imposing term limits, and establishing strong legislative branches and court systems.这是通过举行定期、自由和公平的选举来实现的，施加期限限制，并建立强有力的立法部门和法院系统。Maintaining a free press also helps keep politicians accountable for their actions and encourages citizens to engage in their governments and communities.维护新闻自由也有助于让政治家对自己的行为负责，并鼓励公民参与政府和社区活动。In a dictatorship, absolute or near-absolute power is held by a single individual who is free to impose their vision on society.在独裁统治下，绝对或接近绝对的权力由一个人持有，他们可以自由地将自己的愿景强加于社会。Under certain conditions, the idea of a dictator can sound appealing, like when a democracy isn't functioning as it should due to corruption, economic instability, or extreme political polarization.在某些情况下，独裁者的想法听起来很有吸引力，就像当一个民主国家由于腐败、经济不稳定或极端的政治两极分化而无法正常运作时。At these moments, people may be willing to give up some democratic rights and freedoms for hopes of a better future.此时此刻，人们可能愿意放弃一些民主权利和自由，为了对更美好未来的希望。Authoritarian-leaning leaders present themselves as the ones who can fix everything. They distill complex problems into simple talking points and promise quick solutions.倾向于威权主义的领导人出现，作为可以解决一切问题的人。他们将复杂的问题提炼成简单的谈话要点，并承诺快速解决方案。Some of the most overt authoritarian leaders have taken this strategy, including military dictators who seized control through coups like Augusto Pinochet, Mobuto Sese Seko, and Muammar Gaddafi.一些最公开的专制领导人采取了这种策略，包括通过政变夺取控制权的军事独裁者像奥古斯托·皮诺切特、莫布托·塞塞·塞科和穆阿迈尔·卡扎菲。Gaddafi, for example, initially asserted himself as a revolutionary hero, canceling the country's exploitative foreign oil contracts.例如，卡扎菲最初宣称自己是革命英雄，取消该国剥削性的外国石油合同。But the longer he was in power, the more riddled with paranoia he became.但他掌权的时间越长，他就越是充满偏执狂。Like Pinochet and Mobuto, he used his position to target and torture opponents, embark on campaigns of mass violence against everyday people, and build an enormous personal fortune.像皮诺切特和莫布托一样，他利用自己的职位来针对和折磨对手，开始针对普通人的大规模暴力运动，并建立巨大的个人财富。Other modern dictators were initially elected democratically, then strategically accumulated power by embracing authoritarian forms of control.其他现代独裁者最初是民主选举产生的，然后通过采用专制的控制形式来战略性地积累权力。Italy’s Benito Mussolini and Germany’s Adolf Hitler, for example, gained popularity during waves of mass discontent.例如，意大利的贝尼托·墨索里尼和德国的阿道夫·希特勒在群众不满的浪潮中广受欢迎。Both channeled economic woes into racist rhetoric and embraced fascism, a type of authoritarianism which exalts the importance of one nation, or race, above all others.两者都将经济困境转化为种族主义言论，并拥抱法西斯主义，一种威权主义，它高举一个国家或种族的重要性，高于所有其他人。Once in office, such leaders gradually dismantle checks on their power, including removing judges who might rule against them, abolishing term limits, or refusing to acknowledge unfavorable election results.一旦上任，这些领导人就会逐渐取消对他们权力的制衡，包括罢免可能对他们不利的法官，废除任期限制，或拒绝承认不利的选举结果。Since they punish dissenting voices, dictators are often surrounded with yes-men, who are promoted based on loyalty over expertise, ultimately wreaking incalculable economic, social, and environmental costs.既然他们惩罚不同的声音，独裁者经常被“是”的人包围，他们基于忠诚而不是专业知识而获得晋升，最终造成无法估量的经济、社会和环境成本。But these costs can also be hidden from view. Dictators build up cults of personality by minimizing negative coverage and pushing positive propaganda that presents them as strong or heroic.但这些成本也可以隐藏起来。独裁者通过尽量减少负面报道来建立个人崇拜，并推动积极的宣传，将他们描绘成坚强或英勇的。This can make it almost impossible to accurately measure their success. Did Mussolini really make the trains run on time?这使得几乎不可能准确衡量他们的成功。墨索里尼真的让火车准时运行吗？It’s hard to know, since he would have punished those who said otherwise. While some modern dictators have brought modest growth to their nation’s economies and industries, most have enriched the few and left widespread destruction in their wake.很难知道，因为他会惩罚那些不这么说的人。虽然一些现代独裁者带来了适度的增长对他们国家的经济和工业，大多数都使少数人致富，并在他们之后留下了广泛的破坏。Even so-called benevolent dictators, whose regimes lacked overt violence, stand accused of censoring journalists and limiting the rights and freedoms of citizens.即使是所谓的仁慈的独裁者，他们的政权缺乏公开的暴力，立场被指控审查记者，并限制公民的权利和自由。Back to ancient Rome. Perhaps the most important dimension of Cincinnatus’ legendary benevolent dictatorship is not that he held total power, but that he gave it up after only 16 days.回到古罗马。也许是最重要的维度辛辛那提斯传奇的仁慈独裁统治不是说他掌握了全部的权力，但他只用了 16 天就放弃了。Once Rome was safe, he stepped down and retired to his fields. His willingness to relinquish control to the senate was as important to the common good as his ability to fend off invaders.一旦罗马安全了，他就下台了，退到他的田地里。他愿意将控制权交给参议院也同样重要为了共同利益，因为他有能力抵御入侵者。In practice, no modern dictator has lived up to this ideal. Dictators don’t willingly walk away from power, they continuously crave more.在实践中，没有一个现代独裁者能够实现这一理想。独裁者不会心甘情愿地放弃权力，他们不断渴望更多。That’s why institutions that provide checks on leaders must be safeguarded: in the hands of an aspiring dictator, even seemingly robust democracies can sink into repressive, authoritarian regimes.这就是为什么必须保护对领导人进行制衡的机构：在一个有抱负的独裁者手中，即使是看似强大的民主国家可能会陷入专制的专制政权。