Example-Eduard (birth: 1970) gained world reign in 1995. Gaining nor holding the world reign involved any violence. At some Point maybe to show the possibility to use violence was used as pressure against groups which wanted to stop the building of the world reign by violence.

While in reign he:

  • established world peace
  • brought a reasonable standard of Life for all humans
  • and enforced a good handling of the environment

So he had mostly "good" intentions which he also realised. Morality is a really important value for him. That seems to contradict his dictatorship but handled by him the dictatorship seems to work for all so it is moral to him. The world he created is a properly working clean dictatorship. But he remembers times when dictatorships created great suffering.

Now he knows that the end of his days is near due a cancer diagnosis. He is worried that his successors will not use the power as noble and generous as he did.

So, what can he do to prevent an egoistical and destructive use of the empire he will leave behind?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How his world domination was gained might matter quite a lot in this circumstance. If it was done via brutal conquest and the implementation of a 'good' police state the answer is different to if he did it with epic level social engineering. Or drugs in the water. Or kittens on the internet. $\endgroup$ – Joe Bloggs Nov 27 '15 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ The mechanisms he himself used to keep control of his global empire are going to largely define what happens when he's gone. I might add that there's no way - in any way - that a global government could hold power short of complete military dominance and a willingness to slaughter people in the tens of thousands at the drop of a hat. Not in today's world. So explaining the geo-political situation would be good as well. $\endgroup$ – AndreiROM Nov 27 '15 at 14:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AndreiROM I never mentioned anything about slaugther in my Question. He is controlling the World just like a democratic President his country. The diffrence is that he decides by himself. -> A properly working dictatorship. I hope I understood the comments if not please tell me! $\endgroup$ – if-trubite Nov 27 '15 at 14:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You may want to have a look at the works of the late Sir Terry Pratchett. He has created a (reasonably) benevolent dictator, Havelock Vetinary. In his books, the dictator is more or less elected for life (which, in the presence of a guild of assassins, can be a fairly ambiguous term). $\endgroup$ – Burki Nov 27 '15 at 15:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Burki - OMG, I LOVE TERRY PRATCHETT. The man was a genius. I was so sorry when he passed. Vetinari is one of my favorite characters - I'm glad he got more time in the spotlight (dialogue, etc) in the later novels. $\endgroup$ – AndreiROM Nov 27 '15 at 16:10

Your benevolent dictator has set up an extremely fragile system. While a dictatorship has one massive advantage over other forms of government, that is extremely short reaction times, and one lesser but still strong advantage, a lack of necessity of forming alliances and consequently accepting compromise, it also exists only as long as everybody thinks they are better of with this dictator than without him.

This means, that your dictator will have set up a system (willingly, or by chance) where opinion leaders in the world support him to quite some degree.

With his demise being imminent, the opinion leaders (supposed they are not a bunch of murderous opportunists) will be aware of the upcoming power vacuum, and of the troubles that such a system will provoque.

While they might point their fingers at the dictator, complaining about his lack of foresight and his failure to build up a suitable succession, they should amogst themselves try to find a possible candidate, and propose him to the dictator while he is still in power.

That might ensure that this successor is accepted widely enough, that the old dictator can still pass on bits of wisdom as he sees fit, and most of all make sure the new dictator intrinsically understands the necesity of being accepted.

Because, after all, what's the point in being an absolute ruler, if you can't still be an absolute ruler tomorrow?

  • $\begingroup$ the problem here is that this entire scenario is far too .. smooth. No bloodshed, no muss, no fuss. Look at Alexander the great and what happened to his empire after his death. Look at Genghis Khan. The list goes on. A strong leader can hold an empire together through his ruthlessness/charisma/cunning, but it's very rare for subsequent leaders to be able to hold on to those accomplishments, let alone expand on them. A global government would face overwhelming opposition (on our planet, with our history), and the global community coming together to elect a new leader is unlikely. $\endgroup$ – AndreiROM Nov 27 '15 at 16:17
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreiROM i agree with you. Mostly. With worldbuilding, it might be possible to invent a scenario much like that in Ankh-Morpork, where, while clearly not all is well, it is still well enough. $\endgroup$ – Burki Nov 27 '15 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ the difference is that Ankh-Morpork is a single city, and even it experienced bloody wars, civil upheaval, crazy, ruthless leaders who executed people on a whim, secret police who tortured people, etc. Ankh-Morpork is actually a lot more realistic when you look at all the details than the fantasy setting first leads you to believe. $\endgroup$ – AndreiROM Nov 27 '15 at 16:41

History suggests that the dictatorship will collapse into in-fighting with multiple potential heirs all fighting for the power and possibly carving up the empire between themselves.

The only way to avoid that is to choose an appropriate successor now and start training them. Make sure there are people in place ready to support the chosen successor.

But fundamentally the old axiom "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies. Even if the chosen successor is perfect will the next one be? Or the one after that?

You will need to look to transition to a system of checks and balances, which can work in a multitude of ways, but essentially provide a way to limit or remove an incompetent or malicious dictator.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.