GHETAU GH.

FLORIN

The Perfect Dictator Manual

The Perfect Dictator Manual
by Ghetau Gh. Florin
Published by Ghetau Gh. Florin
Copyrights 2012 Ghetau Gh. Florin

Contents
Some words about an I
Charter I
Chapter II
Dictator

On the Desire of Power or the First Step towards Dictatorship

On the Various Types of Dictatorship or on How a Person Can Become a

Chapter III

On the Unique Party

Chapter IV

On the State and the Dictators Security

Chapter V

On How to Manage the Violent Opposition

Chapter VI

On the Elimination of Political Opponents

Chapter VII

On the Elimination of Domestic and Foreign Dissidents

Chapter VIII

On the Attitude towards the Ones Considered Valuable

Chapter IX

On Censorship, Manipulation and Indoctrination

Chapter X

On the Role of the Dictators Family and Friends

Chapter XI

On What It Is Called the Cult of Personality

Chapter XII

On the Relations of the Dictatorial State with the Other States

Chapter XIII

On the Importance of Economic Prosperity

Chapter XIV

On the Unjustified Academic Ambitions of Dictators

Chapter XV

On the Profile of a Successful Dictator

Chapter XVI An Urge for an as Efficient Dictatorship as Possible or on the Possibility of

Instauration of a Perfect Dictatorship
Afterward

Some Words about an I

When he decided to end the long dreamless sleep, he was aware the I was still everything, he was
the contents of an unparalleled epic in the history of humanity, he was present in the mind of
each component of what was called his people, he was.........and that was enough, but when the
time when he had to sink as a diver in the dreamless sleep came, the I was nowhere. But why?
For a long time, almost as long as an eternity, the I watched from the banners, posters,
TV screens, first page of any book and even from the boxes of shoe polish, and all were pleased,
positive of the fact that they had to whom to give their freedom, with which evidently they no
longer know what to do.
Everyone knew that in the Is country the women gave birth, the hens laid eggs, the
plants grew, the rain fell, only and only because the I was watching willingly and not forced by
anyone.
Endless crowds of children thanked to the I for their happy childhood, thousands of
convicts to death stepped to non-existence smiling because the I had decided their fate, smiling
because their odious deeds had received their rewards, smiling because they were finally
punished for their lack of trust in the I.
The Is birthday was every day and therefore nobody was surprised it was celebrated
every day.
The I had no father and like any providential emissary, he had only a mother, a saint, a
mother of all mothers, en example and a model for any woman, only she could watch by the Is
side.
For a while, the I was said not to have been able to sleep, or eat, or rest, and he had been
everywhere and therefore all those who had committed atrocities such as: not to be convinced the
I was watching, not to believe the I was exactly as the I said he was, not to listen to the I, or even
to deny the Is existence, not to be convinced the I had created the earthy paradise came and
denounced themselves, or even established their own harshest punishments.
All looked at the I because only by him were the most numerous fish cans produced, or
the average wheat yield per hectare exceeded, or the razor blades more and sharper, or did the

textile production reach a record limit, only where the I had passed the shops abounded in foods
and therefore he was invited everywhere.
However, the I ceased to be the I anymore that day and all those who had had blessed
with his presence suddenly, as if on cue, stopped accepting the I, the I did not exist any longer,
only he, the odious he, the one who had oppressed, humiliated them, killed their soul, he had to
be erased from the history of his people, he was not forgotten, though only to be blame him for
all the evil in the world, as he had used to lay blame on him for all the good in the world once,
and those who had called themselves free used their freedom to brand him willingly as well.
How much ingratitude; had they not been free to love the I, had they not been free to
obey to the I, had they not been free to live and die for the I, how could they say such enormities,
how could they say they had not been free?
The I left, withdrew the same day, some said he had fled, others requested his extradition,
but they did not get him as I the I to write this book so that no other I might bear the curse of
not being the first I of the Is universe.

Charter I
On the Desire of Power or the First Step towards Dictatorship
An overview on the history of humanity reveals the fact that the periods when the many
(no matter that it may be about a group, tribe, population, people, nation) held the actual power
and in consequence, they used it by consent to the common advantage were extremely rare and
one might say they were rather accidents as persons or groups of persons confiscated and
exercised the power most of the times indeed for the use of the many sometimes, but most often
against them.
What one calls emphatically democracy (i.e. the power of the people) today was born in
Athens in the 5th century BC and it was the moment when the many had their debut on the stage
of history, and posterity got its much-needed dose of opium with which to be able to dream about
the utopian Golden Age. Although, one should not forget Athens experienced Clistheness
tyranny before Pericless century, subsequently, the reign of the thirty tyrants and one must
admit the desire for power has been the most constant feature of humanity.
The history of the Greek area (during its classic age) was an alternation between tyranny
and democracy, Athenian hegemony (regarded as democracy) and Spartan hegemony (regarded
as tyranny). It was a fight in which the few and the decided had got the power finally, but in both
cases it was about hegemony.
When referring to Ancient Rome, one actually refers to an oligarchic regime which
evolved into a military dictatorship. In fact, the Romans are the creators of the all-modern term
of dictator, which those times meant a magistracy which became active in times of crises when
the existence itself of the state was considered to be threatened. It took only six months, but the

dictator had discretionary power in any field except for the finance one throughout that period.
The dictatorship was a situation similar to what is called state of besiege or state of necessity
today.
During the Republican Age, in spite of the complicated system of political organization,
the effective power was held by a small number of patrician families that had the necessary
money and power to impose their point of view most of the times. This state of fact has not been
changed at all up to nowadays.
Democracy returned on the stage of history only in the 17th century. It chose England as
location for its second incarnation this time. The base of what is called democracy today was
founded through the fight of the Parliament against the absolutism promoted by the Stuart
dynasty.
In fact, the name of semi democracy would fit better to this model so widespread and
appreciated today for it is at halfway between dictatorship and democracy. In order to elucidate
this statement, one shall draw a comparison between Athens and England: the quality of citizen
coincided with the one of politician in Athens because any citizen with full rights could
participate directly in state decisions taking, while the decisions are taken by persons elected by
the citizens in the British-type parliamentary system so that being a politician means being a
member of a restricted elite and not a ordinary citizen.
On the other hand, the elected politicians do not always decide in accordance to the
peoples wishes, because, once elected, there is no efficient mechanism by which citizens could
oblige them to decide in a certain way. Voters can no longer choose such persons after their term
has expired, but the elected persons are inexorably part of the professional politicians caste and
they will act as their predecessors have done before. The only country in the world which has a
pronounced democratic character is Switzerland where the citizens take most of the decisions in
the state by plebiscites as a genuine democracy actually should be.
Increasingly efficient forms of controlling the people started being developed
concomitantly with the representative type democracy. Forms which touched their apogee, but
not their perfection, in the communist and fascist dictatorship of the 20th century. Names as
Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Salazar, Franco, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, or
Pol Pot express the triumph of individuality over the masses.
While certain behaviour was expected in the previous times, to control the facts was not
enough in the age of those mentioned above; thoughts control, all what inner life meant was tried
and sometimes even succeeded in. Those dictatorships are called usually totalitarian due to the
fact they tend to subordinate all the aspects of the human existence.
People whiteness a deaf fight between the two types of states (democratic and
totalitarian) today. The democracies are in the majority what is absolutely unacceptable as
democracy is the triumph of mediocrity. A tyranny of ignorance, abdominal in all its
manifestations. Progress, the leap forward, was made by the iron hands which melted the
individualities in the amorphous crucible of the people. The willingness of power and not the
troglodytes specialized in the art of pure sophism are the agents of progress.

The masses mean something as long as they fully participate into a totalitarian project.
Despotism is inscribed in our genetic code. Let us not oppose to humanity which emanates
through all our pores enslaving us to power.
Emil Cioran revealed in History and Utopia that The one who has not known the
temptation of being the first in the city will not understand anything of the political game, the
will to subject the others in order to transform them into objects, and nor he will guess of what
the art of disdain is made. The purpose of this book is to highlight the fact that two means too
much when it comes about power.1
I, I tasted from the relish of the brute force fully. I was a president, my enemies called me
a dictator and I destroyed the pedestal of an age of prosperity and progress with the help of the
fool, but many.
Now I am opening the lock of the mind from which the anger of helplessness is bursting
by the words of this book. I have written this book for all those who aspire to the hallucinogenic
brilliance of power in its rock state.
Oh, you, who unfairly are called dictators and tyrants, learn from my lessons and do not
permit to anyone to wrest you from the arms of the absolute power.
Before ending this introductory chapter, let us delight with a quotation belonging to
George Orwell, the author of the fabulous novel 1984: We are not interested in others
benefit: we are exclusively interested in POW-ER. Nor wealth, or luxury, or long life, or
happiness: power and thats all, pure power []. Power is not a means; power is an aim in itself.
One does not establish a dictatorship in order to defend a revolution, but one makes a revolution
to establish a dictatorship. The aim of persecution is persecution itself. The purpose of torture is
exactly the torture. The aim of power is power.2
Chapter II
On the Various Types of Dictatorship or on How a Person Can Become a Dictator
Before seeing how many types of dictatorship there are and what their characteristics are, it is
useful and necessary to say what a dictatorship is. Thus, a dictatorship is that political regime in
which the one or ones in power uses all the means at hand in order to maintain and maximise
power. Illegal political regime is not specified as many dictatorial regimes are legal and
legitimate by the logic of the historical evolution. For instance, see the case of Saudi Arabia
where there is no absolutist monarchy or the cases of Brunei and the Sultanate of Oman where
there are no absolutist monarchies and their existence is natural as it has been said before by
the historical evolution.
Here there are the various types of dictatorship which the history of humanity has
recorded:
1

Cioran, Emil, History and Utopia, Bucharest, Humanitas Press, 1997, p. 42

Orwell, George, 1984, Iasi, Polirom Press, 2002, p. 325

A. If the number of persons who have the power is considered, dictatorships can be

personal (in which the power is held only by one person) and oligarchic (in which the
power is held by more persons.)
Most of the dictatorship had a personal character. It can be mentioned: Benito Mussolini
in Italy (1922 - 1945), I. V. Stalin in Soviet Russia (1924 - 1953), Adolf Hitler in
Germany (1933 - 1945), Francisco Franco in Spain (1939 - 1975), Josip Broz Tito in
Yugoslavia (1945 - 1980), Mao Zedong in China (1949 - 1975), Ferdinand Marcos in
Philippines (1966 1986), or Pol Pot in Cambodia (1975 1979) etc.
The oligarchic dictatorship were fewer, but there was a specific form of junta
oligarchic dictatorship, which usually consisted in the collective power of several military
commanders, the power produced of course by coup in South and Central America. Such
a junta led Venezuela between 1950 and 1952. A junta composed of police commanders,
land naval and air forces removed President Salvador Allende from the power
legitimately gained in Chile in 1973. The leader of this junta was the commander-in-chief
of the Land Army Augusto Pinochet. This junta had the power until 1989. A similar junta
led Argentina between 1976 and 1982, and Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri was among its
members, the one who started the war with Britain in Falkland.
Among the best-known oligarchic dictatorships of the contemporary age, there
are: the period between 1924 and 1927 when the Soviet Russia was collectively led by
Lenins followers, until Stalin managed to remove the others in 1927 or the Gang of
Four which led China in the last years of Mao and immediately after his death. Thus, the
oligarchic dictatorship seems to be rather a transition period to a personal dictatorship, at
least in the contemporary age.
B. If the way how a dictatorship is considered, there are: a dictatorship established by
violent means and a dictatorship established by peaceful means. The violent one may
be a revolution (e.g. Oliver Cromwell after the revolution of 1642-1649, Maximilien
Robespierre after the French Revolution started in 1789, Lenin after the Bolshevik
Revolution of October 25th/ November 7th, 1917 or Ayatollah Khomeini after the Islamic
Revolution of 1979 in Iran), a coup (e.g. Spanish General Primo de Rivera in 1923 and,
especially, the frequent coups in Latin America), or a civil war (e.g. Caius Julius Caesar
who defeated Pompey in the civil war of 49 to 44 B.C., Octavian who defeated Mark
Antony in 31 B.C. in the battle of Actium, Vespasian, the winner in the civil war of 68 to
69 A. C., Franco, who won the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, or Mao Zedong,
victorious in the civil war of 1946-1949). The accession to power on this last way is
extremely frequent on the African continent.
Except for the three violent means mentioned above, the fact that a dictator may
be brought to power by the armed forces of a foreign country must be taken into account.
This is how Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej (1948-1945) ascended to Romanias leadership in
1948, imposed by the Red Army troops. That was the situation of all countries in Eastern
Europe which were made Communist by the leaders of Kremlin after 1945.

The peacefully established dictatorships are of two types: inherited or usurping

a legitimately obtained power.
The dictatorial power is the most frequently inherited in the case of a monarchic
succession if the monarchy has a dictatorial/ absolutist character, but except for this case,
the dictator may appoint successor directly. The successor may or may not be a relative
of the predecessor. There are certainly not rare situations when real dictatorial dynasties
were built (e.g. Somoza in Nicaragua, Lopez in Paraguay, etc.).
Usurping the authority gained legitimately is a method often used in order to build a
dictatorial regime because it has the advantage of acceding to power without a strong
opposition. It is obvious for anyone it is much easier to create a dictatorship if having
already been in power. The power which later becomes absolute is not needed to be
gained. Moreover, the faithful have already been in key positions within the state so that
a totalitarian regime might be inaugurated under the best auspices possible.
Napoleon III acted that way, he was elected president of the second French
Republic by universal suffrage after the Revolution of 1848. He devised a plan to totally
seize the power from that position in 1852, and it was fully successful so he proclaimed
himself Emperor of France on December 2nd, 1852, following the example of his
illustrious predecessor, Napoleon Bonaparte who was crown emperor on December 2nd,
1804.
The well-known Adolf Hitler came to Germanys rule by suffrage, too. More
exactly, on January 30th, 1933 he became chancellor of the Weimar Republic due to the
votes attracted by his political group called the National Socialist Party of German
Workers. Taking advantage of the death of President Hindenburg the illustrious
marshal in the World War I he cumulated the functions of president and chancellor
(1934) in a new function designated by the word fhrer (leader in German).
In Romania, King Carol II (1930-1940) instituted a royal dictatorship in February
1938, taking advantage of an artificial political crisis created by his own person. This
regime collapsed together with the borders of Great Romania in September 1940.
C. If the base of the dictatorial power is taken into consideration, there are: military
dictatorships, ideological dictatorships, and theocratic dictatorship.
Most of the dictatorships recorded in the humanity history were of military nature, as it is
relatively simple to seize and keep power by army way. Being an easy way, it is not
surprising many people tried their luck in this direction.
Such dictatorships were erected, for instance, by: Ashoka in India of the 3rd
century B.C. , Cornelius Sulla in Ancient Rome (83-79 B.C.), Napoleon Bonaparte in
France (1799-1814, 1815) Miklos Horty in Hungary (1920-1944), Mustafa Kemal
Atatrk in Turkey (1922-1938), Ioannis Metaxas in Greece (1936-1941), or Ion
Antonescu in Romania (1940-1944). The dictatorship of the last stared in September
1940 under ideological auspices, but in January 1941 he got rid of the legionaries of
Horia Sima and ruled by his own having the armys support within he had come.

It must be specified that not all the dictatorship which have ever existed relied on
the military in a more or less extent, but some used the army secondarily basing their
power on something else. These kinds of dictatorship are ideological and theocratic.
Ideological dictatorships are an innovation of the 20th century, and one can say
they dominated this recently ended century. This type of dictatorship legitimates taking,
maintaining and using of power by a certain ideology to which it tends to subordinate
also the individuals intimate and inner life.
The one which is called to put into practice the ideological dogmas is the party in
this type of dictatorship, and the party is inevitably unique and totalitarian. All the aspects
of the social life and the state structures as well are subordinated to the party.
The two great ideologies which generated numerous dictatorial regimes
throughout the 20th century were: Communism and Fascism. The German version of
Fascism is called Nazism as A. Hitler added a racist component which is not found in the
original coordinates of this ideology. Communism as well faced more scissions which did
not alter its substance, though.
Ideological dictatorships based on communism were in Russia (1917-1992),
Albania (1945-1989), Poland (1946-1989), Romania (1948-1989), etc. Nowadays there
still are few countries where this type of dictatorship has still survived. The countries are:
China from 1949, North Vietnam from 1954, and Cuba from 1959.
Ideological dictatorships based on fascism existed in Italy (1922-1945) and it was
established by Benito Mussolini (the creator of the fascist current) and died with him; in
Spain between 1939 and 1975 under Francisco Franco s rule; in Portugal from 1932 to
1974 under Salazars guidance. Fascism had many representatives among the dictators of
South America as well.
Nazism was theorized by a former corporal of the first world-proportioned
conflagration called Adolf Hitler in his work suggestively entitled Mein Kampf (My
struggle - German). This ideology was put into practice in Germany between 1933 and
1945.
In the following lines, I am not going to deepen the analysis of these ideologies as
they have been extensively and systematically dissected in numerous books, studies,
articles and because they are nothing but pretexts of power, I would give it them too
much importance by analyzing them.
Theocratic dictatorships are based on a religious doctrine and one or more leaders
of the clergy are in power on behalf of it.
Such a regime existed in Ancient Israel when the power was helped by the High
Priests, in the Papal State between 756 and 1870 and newly in Iran where Ayatollah
Khomeini founded such a regime supported by the precepts of the Islamic religion in
1979 and it still exists today.
D. The amount of power which a certain dictatorial regime holds and exercises is an
important criterion of discrimination among the various types of such regimes.

Viewing the dictatorships from this perspective, there are: authoritarian dictatorships,
absolutist dictatorships and totalitarian dictatorships.
Authoritarian dictatorships are those regimes in which the power of the dictator
suffers certain imposed or self-imposed limitations. In this category it falls: Jozef
Pilsudski Poland (1924-1936), King Carol II of Romania Romania (February 1938September 1940), Marshal Ion Antonescu Romania (September 6th, 1940- August 23rd,
1944) etc.
Absolutist dictatorships are those which even if they have a high degree of power,
they use it in order to maintain it. Almost all absolutist monarchists of the 17th to 19th
centuries can be included in this category such as: Louis XIV France (1643-1715),
Louis XV France (1715-1774), Frederick II Prussia (1740-1786), Maria Theresa
Austria (1740-1780) or Catherine II Russia (1762-1796).
Totalitarian dictatorships appeared in the century of speed in order to achieve
total control on society. Any means at hand was used in order to achieve this goal. These
dictatorships are usually based on fascist and communist ideologies.
These dictatorships did not step aside even from practicing genocide in order to
maximize power. For instance, I.V. dze Jughashvili, known especially as Stalin,
generated artificially a famine to which about 8 million people fell victims in order to
prevent any opposition to his regime from the Ukrainian population side. A strange
behaviour for the Georgian meant to an ecclesiastical career by his mother.
A. Hitler channelled the possible dissatisfactions of the Germans concerning his
regime using a procedure of medieval origin: the Jewish. They were clearly as guilty as
possible of anything, but especially of the Germanys defeat in World War I. All the
anti-Jewish riots led to the death camps where millions of Jews died.
E. If the duration of a dictatorial regime is taken into consideration, there are: episodic
dictatorship or short term dictatorship, ephemeral dictatorship or medium term ones,
and perennial dictatorship or long term dictatorship.
F. If the way how power of a dictatorship is built there are: diffuse dictatorship and
explicit dictatorship. I.e. dictatorships which give their best to seem democratic and
legitimate regimes and regimes which make no secret of the fact they have absolute
power.
In this respect, the regimes of two Romanian dictators are to be compared: King
Carol II (1930-1940) and Nicolae Ceausescu (1965-1989). The former established a
dictatorial regime in February 1938 and the Constitution come into force on February
27th, 1938 explicitly stated that the possessor of the supreme power was to be the king.
Thus Art. 31 the legislative power was to be exercised by the sovereign by the National
Representative and the legislative initiative primarily belonged to the King. On the other
hand, Art. 32 stipulated: the executive power is entrusted to the King who exercises it by
his Government as established by the Constitution. If a person cumulates the legislative
power and the executive one, people deal with a dictatorial regime as the sacred
democratic principle of separation of the powers in a state is not respected.

In contrast, the Constitution of 1965 promulgated after having been taken the
power by Nicolae Ceausescu put it vaguer. In consequence, Art. 4 said: The Grand
National Assembly is the supreme body of the state power, all other bodies of state
operates under its guidance and control. At the same time, the Grand National Assembly
is elected by universal, equal, direct and secret vote. On the other hand, Art. 25
stipulated: All citizens of the Socialist Republic of Romania have the right to elect and
be elected in the Grand National assembly and in the Peoples Council. Therefore, one
can notice how the Constitution of 1965 even if it built a dictatorial regime, was more
careful at the nuances than the one of 1938 which simply proclaimed the supreme power
of the King.
One could distinguish among the dictatorial regimes starring from the performances of
those regimes; such a distinction is believed to be purely subjective and therefore dispensable.
The reader must be warned about the following aspect: most of the previously used
characteristics in order to categorize and describe the dictatorial regimes are found cumulated
partly or totally in all dictatorships. Although on distinguishing among dictatorships, the
predominant aspects of the respective regimes were taken into account.
Chapter III
On the Unique Party

Since back to ancient times, people with ordinary ideas and interests have come together in order
to increase their chances to win considering the state takeover. Thus, more or less organized
structured - commonly known as parties arose.
In ancient times, parties were formed by coalition of folk energies around a leader.
Therefore, there were the parties created by Cleisthenes, Themistocles, Pericles, Nicias, or
Alcibiades in Athens, or Epaminondas and Pelopidas in Thebes, etc. Two large parties were
formed in Rome of the 1st century B.C.: optimums and populists. The confrontations between the
two parties gave birth to the three civil wars faced by the Romans in that century. A series of
dictatorial characters were noticed during those wars such as: Sulla, Marius, Pompey, Crassus,
Caesar, Octavian, or Marc Antony, but the most popular has remained Caesar, the one who was
named dictator for life in 44 B.C.
Parties became basic elements of the political life in the Modern Age. Today, they have
received a strictly hierarchical organisation built around of a guiding idea (status) in order to
obtain power legally and use it for implementing certain goals (program).
If far to the Modern Age what is meant through democracy today had manifested as an
isolated - with a suggestion of an accident phenomenon - nowadays, more and more states have
come to have democratic forms of government or in the process of democratisation, at least. One
can say the 20th century brought the greatest progresses in increasing the democratic power, but
also the greatest achievements in terms of imposing democracy as the best existing political

regime definitely in the eye of masses. This state of fact has been reached by a titanic struggle
between totalitarianism and democracy and crossings from one side to another are frequent and
often unnoticeable for the profane.
Multi-party system is a basic piece in the arsenal of the democratic regimes and as one of
the favourite weapons of the dictatorial regimes is to pretend to be what they are not, it simulates
certain aspects of the democratic practice such as the existence of several political parties or the
frequent use of the suffrage. All these because the people manifest a particular attraction for
democracy, and therefore, the dictatorial regimes must fiercely pretend the status of democratic
regimes. Holding power in the state can be legitimated in this way at least at the propagandistic
level, a fact that should not be neglected at all. In consequence, people should not be surprised if
the most oppressive regimes declare themselves as profoundly committed to the democratic
values. For instance, the regimes in Eastern Europe called themselves popular democracies.
Numerous totalitarian regimes gained power based on some anchor ideas (ideologies)
whose first practical expression was the unique and totalitarian party. Such parties were: the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Italian Fascist Party, and National Socialist of the German
Workers Party. These parties became unique and totalitarian as clearly as possible only after
having taken power. An elementary rule requires for suppressing all political opponents and
therefore, all political parties in opposition must be abolished shortly after having come to
power.
A lesson was brilliantly given by Adolf Hitler in this respect. He orchestrated the burning
of the Reichstag building on the 27th of February 1933. Using this pretext as it had been planned
by the Communists, he abolished the Communist Party and imprisoned its members. That was
the first step in eliminating all political parties except for the Nazi one.
A method somehow similar to the one presented above was used by King Carol II of
Romania. This one became the head of Romania on the basis of the monarchical succession.
Although he had renounced to this right in 1925, he returned in the country in 1930 and took
power uncrowning his under aged son (Michael I). Nourishing dictatorial ambitions he
undermined the political parties until he saw his dream come true in February 1930. In order to
strengthen the newly inaugurated regime he issued the decree on dissolution the political parties
on March 30th, 1938 which read as follows:
Art. 1 All associations, groups or parties currently in existence and which have been
formed in order to spread political ideas or implement them are and remain dissolved. Art. 2 No
other new organisation cannot be founded in future or activate only under the conditions and
forms stipulated in a special law which is to be established for this purpose.3
He founded a party called the National Renaissance Front only later, on December 16th,
1938, which became the only political organisation in the state; any political activity outside
the N.R.F. was to be punished with civic degradation from 2 to 5 years. The Supreme Head of
this party was the King; leadership was provided by a Superior Council consisting of 150
members, a Directorate of 30 members and 3 secretaries-general. The members of the F.N.R.
3

Apud Ioan Scurtu, Gheorghe Buzatu, The History of the Romanians in the 20th Century, Bucharest,
Paideia Press, 1999, p. 346

wore blue uniforms and their greeting was: Health and a Roman salute with the right arm
raised to the shoulder level.4
Therefore, in the two examples presented above one can see that some authoritarian
regimes came to power using a previously formed party and around it they had welded the
totalitarian power while others founded parties only after they had come to power in order to
strengthen their control over the state. But unique parties are dealt with in both cases. Having
power on their side, the unique parties became inexorably mass parties with trends of
transforming themselves into what it is called today a nation party.
Mostly, dictatorial regimes have accepted only one unique party, whether there had been
one before taking the rule or it was created after getting it. For example there was only the
Fascist Party in Italy from 1922 to 1945; the tyrant Trujillo Molina (1930-1961) tolerated only
the Dominican Party in the Dominican Republic; in Romania there was only the Romanian
Workers Party from 1948 to 1989 which took the name of the Romanian Communist Party in
1965 with the arrival of Nicolae Ceausescu at the countrys helm.
There were, however, also regimes which agreed with the existence of several political
parties without them having a real role. The aim of this farce was to maintain the illusion there
were still a functional democratic regime by alternating the parties in government.
My opinion leans towards this form of management of the issue of the political parties as
it is the most elegant and credible. Such an approach of the issue of the political parties cannot be
done only after gaining total control over the state. The dictator cannot afford to simulate the
existence of a multi-parties system as if he did not control the country absolutely.
The dictator Anastasio Somoza Garcia who ruled Nicaraguas destiny in the period 19361956 acted in this way. Somoza the founder of a dictatorial dynasty had full control over
Nicaraguan Liberal Party and signed a pact with the conservative opposition from this position to
which he offered places in the governmental apparatus in exchange for its unconditional support
to his regime.
In the light of the historical experience I allow myself to recommend the dictator to
suppress the other political parties at the beginning of his power as A. Hitler did in 1933, Carol II
in 1948 or Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej in 1948. But after he consolidate his power, the dictator
might create puppet political parties in order to offer the illusion of a democratic multi-parties
regime set by the rules of the universal, equal, secret and freely expressed vote.
At this point I dare draw attention to the dictator on the temptation exercised by the
absolute figures. It is as clear as possible that the dictator must defraud any referendum, but it
should be credible and subtle. Electoral scores such as 99 % or sometimes even 100% (see the
case of North Korea in this respect) discredits from the very beginning as it is practically
impossible to get an agreement of such magnitude. Any percentage over 50 % is enough under
the conditions that the elections have no real risk in a dictatorial regime, they only perpetuate a
chimera.

Ibidem, p. 352.

A counterproductive example is given by the Dominican dictator Rafael Leonidas

Trujillo Molina who came to power from the position of a candidate of the Dominican Party for
the presidential elections in 1930. He got the unlikely figure of 95 % of the votes under the
circumstances that more votes than the number of voters were counted, but this issue became
known long after the people had decided.
In contrast, the Communists in Romania present a pattern which can be followed with
few retouches. I refer to the parliamentary elections on the 19th of November 1946. The
Communists appeared with a host of Lilliputian parties at this election under the name of
National Democratic Block. The NDB got 68.8% of the votes and 84.1% of the parliamentary
seats through intimidation, propaganda and fraud, and that seems to be a decent score compared
to the above mentioned North Korea where the turnout is 100% and unique candidates get 100%
of the votes.
It is good for the citizens to live under the impression there is another attitude than the
official one, but only if the repressive apparatus is very well done as it is better to convince by
manipulation than to impose by force. And the dictator might not forget by any means that the
unique party is not a goal in itself but a means of taming the masses and the ideologies are only
excuses of power.
Chapter IV
On the State and the Dictators Security

A dictator can lack many things and measures which have already been described until
here, but under no circumstances can he deprive himself of the ones which are to be highlighted
in this chapter because the existence of a dictatorial regime is indissolubly linked to the existence
of a repressive apparatus.
The dictator really needs a repressive apparatus as far as his power is illegitimate and it is
supported by propagandistic pillars. Individuals are very often immune to the informational
assault orchestrated by the regime and adopt hostile attitudes against it. When this happens, the
repressive apparatus intervenes and it has the role to eliminate any resistance to the absolute
power of the dictator.
Looking back into past, the dictator can easily notice that absolutely all dictators
established military structures meant to suppress any resistance. Thus, one can see how the
Persian emperors created the so-called Immortals and Augustus the first Roman emperor
quartered an elite army at the outskirts of Rome, privileged in relation to the other military units.
I definitely refer to the Praetorian Guard composed originally of nine cohorts led by two prefects.
The Praetorian cohorts were tools of suppression and intimidation at the emperors hand. Tsar
Ivan IV the Terrible (1533-1584) had the black riders, Napoleon the Imperial Guard, and the
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein the Republican Guard, etc.

The repressive apparatus is built on the famous principle that it is easier to prevent than to
cure, and in order to carry out this mission it is started from the necessary trinomial: STORAGE
CENSORSHIP ERADICATION.
Storage means to identify the threats of the regime. The threats can be generally:
informational and insurrectional. Censorship deals with the informational ones which filters the
flow of the knowledge accessible to ordinary people, while the insurrectional threats are
eradicated by tough means.
It results from the above issues that the repressive work requires a strict specialisation of
the security system. Thus, any repressive apparatus is broadly structured as it follows:
- External division;
- Internal division;
- The censorship office;
- The security forces.
The primordial role of the external division is to gather detailed accurate information
about the elements hostile to the dictatorial regime which operate outside the country.
One can see therefore the external division has the most difficult and dangerous task as it
is forced to action on other states territories which definitely will not accept gladly that the
repressive forces of a dictatorial regime come and violate their sovereignty and suppress its
enemies in their yard. Or even worse, they could fraternize with the enemies of the regime. A
situation which is as undesirable as frequent.
The work of the external division should be done under total discretion. The failure of
some operations of elimination of some undesired was often felt stirring animosities in the
diplomatic circles and the international media promptly exploits such opportunities giving birth
to unfavourable currents of opinion. A dictatorial regime has all its interest to be as less visible as
possible on the stage of the international relations.
The missions of the internal division and the engaged means are to be discussed about in
extenso in the next chapters, but some considerations are also to be done in this chapter.
Thus, the main assignment of the internal division is to collect information on the
regimes enemies and use it for the purpose of extirpating these potential sources of danger.
The internal division of the security apparatus needs a vast network of informers
recruited from all the compartments of the social life regardless of sex or age in order to get this
information. Recruitment should be done by (money, functions or other favours), exploiting the
emotional vein (consider envy, hatred, animosity etc.) or compulsion when circumstances
require.
I consider useless to repeat that the most important condition to survive for a dictatorial
regime is the strict control of information because the one who has got the information masters
the situation. In consequence, the security structures of the dictatorial regime are engaged in a
fierce battle which aims to acquire the information on time and for that reason no means of
acquiring information no matter how immoral it may seem should not be neglected. The modern
technology offers many possibilities in this respect, from intercepting the mail to planting

microphones, listening to the telephone calls, informers recruitment from the subjects circle or
stakeout performed by security agencies.
A dictatorial regime can carry out anything, but it should be careful to discretion as it is
of utmost importance to keep up the appearances, so that those said by the regime might be more
worthy of belief in reference to him than the one said about him by his enemies.
Bellow, some of the most popular services of security with responsibilities concerning
the internal security of a dictatorial regime are to be briefly presented.
On December 7th/20th, 1917, the Whole-Russian Extraordinary Commission for
Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage was created and it was better known as the
abbreviation Cheka. Its first chief was Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky and the extended name
of this organisation leaves no doubt on the role to which it was intended and played throughout
the existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic under various names (GPU, OGPU,
NKVD, MGB, and finally KGB).
Hitler counted on the Gestapo (the Secret State Police) for the state security; B. Mussolini
replaced the royal guard with his own squadristi and security was the responsibility of secret
police OVRA.
GDSP (the General Direction for the Security of the People) was created in Romania in
1948 and which activated under the Ministry of Domestic Affairs and was known throughout the
Communist period as Securitatea. This structure was tributary to the expertise offered by the
Soviet advisers. At least, for the beginning.
The Haitian dictator Francois Duvalier (1957-1971) nicknamed Papa Doc remained in
power with the help of the secret police Tontons Macoutes which established a terrorism of
voodoo inspiration. His son Jean-Claude Duvalier (1971-1986) known as Baby Doc also held
the power with the unconditional support of the same organisation.
The German Democratic Republic (GDR) was created by the USSR in the German part
which was under its occupation in the early 50s of the last century. It gained a sad reputation
because of the repressive and extremely efficient actions taken by the famous Stasi.
The censorship office is to be discussed about in detail in a special chapter, though some
historical mentions must be done. Its role is to purify the informational flow accessible to the
people. The popular consciousness should be kept asleep with positive, but plausible information
on the regime.
The glorious predecessor of the censorship offices was the so-called Congregation of the
Index created by the Catholic Church in the 16th century in its great effort initiated in order to
combat the religious reform started by Martin Luther. The Congregation of the Index had a
central role in the conjuncture of the counter reform as it had to identify and destroy the books
which contradicted the Catholic dogma.
Napoleon himself organised an extremely effective censorship body: the Black Office.
The security forces are structures of military security different from the national army
and have as a main objective to repress the actions of force made by more or less organized
elements against the dictatorial regime.

In other words, the security troops are elite units required by the simple fact that the
national army as a mass body often manifests a huge lack of appetite concerning carrying out the
missions against its own people. The security forces are recruited, trained and rewarded so that
they might be immune to the sentimentalities which dominate the regular soldiers.
Popular revolts can often outburst and here the security forces intervene in order to calm
the spirits by any necessary means.
The security forces were masterfully managed by Adolf Hitler. Before ascending to
power, the Nazi party organised the shock troops SA (Sturmabteilung) also known as the
Brownshirts. This structure was ruled by Ernst Rhm. The leaders of SA were beheaded in what
was called The Night of the Long Knives on the 30th of June 1934. Thus, the role of the SA
was taken by SS (Schutzstaffel) or the Blackshirts, a structure governed by Himmler. SD actions
inside the SS, a safety service which oversaw the ideological purity of the SS members.
Immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution of October 25th/ November 7th 1917 the Red
Guards were organised in Russia, and the dictator Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej created the Security
Troops in Romania.
This chapter cannot be finished without highlighting few personalities of history who
earned the well-deserved reputation of torturers through their hard work in some tyrants service.
The survival of a dictatorial regime would have been impossible without their dedication.
Under these truths one should remember Sejanus. He was one of the two prefects of the
Praetorian Guard when Emperor Tiberius (14 AD) came to rule. The next year he remained the
only leader of this elite unit which he enlarged to twelve cohorts concentrated in one camp.
The Empire remained in Sejanuss care and he did not disappoint his patron as he
orchestrated processes of treason against his opponents since 26 AD when Tiberius retreated to
Capri Island. Thus, illustrious characters disappeared from the political stage of Rome. But he
finally fell in the Emperors disgrace and that led to his execution in 31 AD.
Tigellinus was perfect of the Praetorian Guard from 62 to 68 during Emperor Neros
reign. Nero gained a sad reputation with the help of art like many other dictators. It is about
Henryk Sienkiewiczs novel Quo Vadis in his case. Passing over these divagations, it should be
noted that Tigellinus impeccably served his master and he committed numerous horrors on his
behalf and eventually he betrayed him collaborating to Neros removal from the reign of the
Roman Empire. However, he was not well as he was obliged to commit suicide in the whirl of
the civil war that broke out after Neros fall. After all, who can trust a traitor?
Lavrentiy Beria is one of the best-known torturers of the humanity history for the faith he
served Stalin. He was chief of NKVD during Stalins time between 1938 and 1953. After the
death of the one who put him in such a high position, his ambitions were broken by Nikita
Khrushchev and his associates who managed to get to the record to suppress physically one of
the most efficient executioners.
Johnny Abbes Garcia enjoyed to the full the notoriety of the dictator whom he served,
Trujillo Molina. He was appointed head of the Military Intelligence Service (SIM) in 1958. He
was noticed in this position by the assassination attempts which he had plotted against President
Romulo Betancourt of Venezuela. He is said to have had the habit to carry out certain

assassinates personally. On the other hand, he used to throw his victims in the sea to serve as
food for the Caribbean sharks. Therefore, one can see the dictatorships are periods proper both
for land and sea sharks. As for Abbes, I consider it appropriate to say that he died as he lived
violently after Trujillos death.
The Communist Romania also offers top characters of the ignoble but necessary function
of torturer. One of the main torturers of Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej regime was Alexandru
Nicolschi who was noticed by atrocities committed from the head of the General Direction for
the Security of the People (1948-1953). Unlike other famous torturers, he ended during his sleep
in 1992 after he had lived like a pasha during the Communist period and even after thereafter.
I advise the dictator to reflect carefully on the issues which were dealt with in this chapter
because they are of utmost importance and to lean towards on the lessons which history
generously offers. Only if he wants to hold the absolute power for a long time.
Chapter V
On How to Manage the Violent Opposition

What is called a violent opposition at a certain moment can be materialised towards the authority
of the dictator. This is the most dangerous type of opposition as it involves armed fight and as
it is well known the bellicose actions are always unpredictable.
The violent opposition can generate: a civil war, a coup, an insurrection, or a revolution.
Not few were the cases when the dictators were removed from power by civil wars.
English King Charles I Stuart, who had been unable to manage and repress the parliamentary
opposition, triggered a civil war to which he became a victim as he was defeated and beheaded in
1649.
The civil wars are extremely frequent in the contemporary age. But the present practice
has imposed a tactics of raising an army by the guerrilla warfare up to the point when it becomes
strong enough to frontally deal with the armed forces of the dictatorial regime.
The Chinese dictator Mao Zedong acted the same way in 1928 and he was expelled from
the Communist Party and instead of resigning he retreated into the mountains and organised a
peasant army called the Mass Line. Armed with this tool at hand, he threw himself into a furious
guerrilla war against the regime of Chiang Kai-shek, the undisputed leader of the Nationalist
Party (Kuomintang). The common enemy, the Japanese, interrupted the natural course of this
war in 1945. In fact, the Japanese invasion gave to Maos army a precious respite which he used
at maximum to make himself stronger. Therefore, Mao won the civil war between 1946 and
1949 with massive support from the Soviets and that led to the proclamation of the Peoples
Republic of China.
Fidel Castro Ruz who seized the power in Cuba in 1959 came to rule on this same way.
He managed to remove the dictator Fulgencio Batista in two stages: the guerrilla war (19571958) and the general offensive (October 1958- January 1959).

In fact, these are the classic stages of taking power in our times generally. Firstly, a
paramilitary organisation is built preferably with foreign support after its combative potential
is maximised up to the point when the final assault on the regime can be preceded.
The list of this kind of examples may be supplemented with other cases such as:
- The banishment of the dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle of Nicaragua was done in
the last 70s by the Sandinistas (the Sandinista National Liberation Front), a leftist
guerrilla group named in this way in the honour of the revolutionary Augusto Cesar
Sandino (1893-1934);
- Mobutu Sese Seko (on his real name Joseph Desire Mobutu), dictator from 1965 in
Zaire (now Congo) was also removed from the head of the state by the force of the
army in the 90s.
The violent opposition has as a primary source an inefficient repressive regime. But when
it occurs, it must be treated seriously by the dictator. Thus, the security forces which have been
discussed in the previous chapter are necessary for such moments.
As the success of the violent opposition is tributary to the support come from outside
usually materialised by instructors, money, weapons and information to a great extent, the
dictator should maintain as cordial as possible relationships with the neighbouring countries. If
that is impossible, he should intimidate them by any means.
The violent opposition has infinitesimal chances to succeed in without external support as
it could be observed in the case of the armed resistance organised by numerous people in the 5th 6th decades of the last century against the Communist regime in Romania. Deprived by any
support from abroad and even if they had feverishly been waiting for the Americans, the
opponents who were fighting in the mountains were defeated without much effort. In contrast,
the Revolution of December 1989 who removed Dictator Nicolae Ceausescu from power was a
success because it had been planned abroad and carried out with the great involvement of the
foreign secret services.
One can see the importance of diplomacy in terms of maintaining the dictator in power in
the light of those presented above.
Besides, it is not enough to maintain good neighbourhood relationships with different
countries, but a series of internal measures should also be taken such as:
- The censorship should prevent the people from knowing about the existence of a
violent opposition against the regime.
- The Government should prevent the people from rallying to the opposing groups by
efficient social and economic measures as a person who is satisfied with his situation
is not easily launched in military adventures.
- The repressive apparatus should identify the threats on time and extirpate them with
no mercy.
- If possible, the repression should not be too obvious but rather diffuse in order not to
be perceived as an imminent danger by the people.
In other words, the dictator should be very careful about the members of his on regime as
the coups, insurrections, or revolutions are frequently organised right inside the group of the

dictators supporters. The dictator should create a division in the repressive apparatus specialised
in surveillance of the repressive apparatus in order to prevent such an eventuality. This is how
the chances that the repressive apparatus could plot against him are reduced.
Adolf Hitler confronted such a situation on the 20th of July 1944 and he was about to be
assassinated with a bomb hidden in a briefcase. Operation Valkyrie, conceived by high rank
officers in Hitlers entourage miraculously failed. Thai is why the dictator should pay attention to
his own collaborators.
The way on which those who long for the supreme power step is difficult and dangerous
and the competitors stalk at all over the place.
Curzio Malaparte, the well-known supporter of Benito Mussolini in the early years of his
regime, tells in the volume entitled Coup detat: The technique of revolution about the fragility
of the regimes in power in our times. Although the work saw the light of the printing press in
1931, its value of truth has been kept intact as one can see in the following quotation:
The current conditions in Europe offer many opportunities to fulfil the ambitions of
the right and left determined revolutionaries. The insufficiency of the measures taken or planned
by the governments in order to prevent a possible revolutionary attempt is so serious that the
danger of a coup must be taken into seriously in many countries in Europe. The specific nature of
the modern state, its complexity and the difficulty of its functions, the gravity of the political,
social and economic issues to which the state is called to solve are combined with the peoples
weaknesses and riots increasing the difficulties which must be overcome in order to assure its
protection. The modern state is exposed more than it could be believed to the revolutionary
danger. The governments do not know how to protect it.5
Chapter VI
On the Elimination of Political Opponents

The dictator should take a series of indispensable measures in order to strengthen and especially
to maintain the power. These measures include: elimination of the political opponents,
dissidents, those considered valuable, censorship, manipulation, etc. All these measures and
many others have been or will be analysed in this paper, though, given the importance of each
aspect, I have chosen to speak about the elimination of the political opponents in what it follows.
Firstly, the distinction between political opponents and dissidents has to be done. Political
opponents are persons or groups of persons inside or outside of totalitarian system that act on
different ways in order to replace the one in power with themselves, while dissidents do not aim
or do not have the power to become dictators and in consequence they are satisfied with
requiring the removing of the supreme power holder.

Curzio Malaparte , Coup detat: The technique of revolution, Bucharest, Nemira Press, 2007, p. 30-31

Definitely, other authors who have discussed about this issue may have different opinions
on the classifications suggested for certain elements which define the struggle for power. I see
the things as I present them and the used compartments are eminently for practical reason being
meant to make the speech more intelligible and not to theorise exhaustibly. Everyone can create
or choose the suitable definitions as nothing in this system is universally valid, maybe only the
desire for power.
But let us come back to what interests, namely the elimination of political opponents i.e.
those who want to take the power from the dictator. They can be of two kinds: opponents with
support and opponents without support.
The opponents with support are those who count on a large number of supporters. They
may come from the army, party, state apparatus, or the people. One considers pointless to remind
how dangerous they are.
The opponents without support are those who operate in small groups or even on their
own. These are less dangerous and are known as plotters.
Numerous methods have been patented in order to get rid of the opponents with support,
but I will review only the ones I have considered more relevant. Thus, the opponents with
support can be from inside or outside of the dictatorial power. The ones from outside are
extremely dangerous and it is rather difficult to eliminate them. They frequently hide themselves
in the bosom of some parties with rival doctrines which aim at taking the power.
Adolf Hitler confronted such a problem at the beginning of his regime. The power was
disputed with the opposition parties. Under those circumstances, he framed the burning of the
Reichstag (headquarter of German Parliament) on the 27th of February 1933 getting a solid
pretext in this way on which to abolish the Communist Party and he did. And by extension, this
party became guilty - temporarily for all the evil which was haunting the German society. Only
NSDAP had remained on the German political stage by the end of 1933,.
Another method is the one of direct and complete extirpation of the political opponents.
An example in this respect was offered by the Romanian dictator Ion Antonescu. He ruled
Romania joined by the Legionnaires from September 1940 to January 1941. It was a marriage of
convenience strictly supervised by a severe tutor, A. Hitler.
When the latter clearly showed he preferred Antonescu, the dice had been thrown so that
the Iron Guard ruled by Horia Sima could be annihilated with the support of the armed forces
loyal to the head of the Government.
Thus, radical and quickly executed force measures are preferred in order to eliminate the
opponents from the outside part of the dictatorial power. The Iron Guard and I. Antonescu had
different structures of support even if they had nominally ruled together and thus the winner
could be decided only by confrontation.
The opponents from the inside of the dictatorial power are very dangerous as well
because they are difficult to be detected and paralyse the base on which the dictators power is
supported and when they start proceeding they can let the dictator unprotected. One can work
with them either explicitly or subtly.

Hitler created a paramilitary organisation that would have had to facilitate taking the
power during the Nazi Party having been formed. This remained known on the acronym SA.
There was a close associate of the future fhrer, Ernst Rhm, at the SA rule. The latter stared to
strengthen SA after the Nazi Party had taken over the reins of power, its number of members
instantaneously increasing. Under those circumstances, a confrontation between Hitler and Rhm
was inevitable. Thus, on the night of 30th of June 1934 all the leaders of SA were beheaded by an
action that could be called one of a commando.
Stalin confronted a somehow similar situation in 1934. Then, the 17th Congress of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union manifested its support for Sergei Kirov as a possible
alternative to Stalins power. The dictator of Georgian origin planned Kirovs assassination
which he used as an excuse for the offence and removal of other players when feeling the danger.
Many are the lessons which a dictator can learn studying the career of Joseph Stalin. The
Marshal Tukhachevsky Affair of 1937 is a classic model of purification of the army from
undesirable elements and Leon Trotskys suppression in his refuge in Mexico is an example of
tenacity.
Thus, a dictator should identify and mercilessly remove any threat to his power. No
matter what means he may use, he should never lack a pretext, as without any pretext, he appears
as what he really is, an addict on power in everybodys eyes.
The opponents without support or the plotters are usually isolated. They entirely count on
bold actions through which to get the people or armed support.
The boundary between the opponents with or without support is difficult to draw. The
crossing from one category to another is frequent and I have tried to present an as large as
possible spectrum of methods through which the political opponents to be removed by operating
this artificial distinction.
The most famous action of the opponents without support is unequivocally the one
planned by Cassius and Brutus which ended in Caius Julius Caesars assassination on the Ides of
March in 44 BC while he was in the presence of the senators.
The ruler Alexandru Ioan Cuzas forced abdication with the support of the key elements
of the army on the night of 11th /13th of February 1866 remains a reference point in the Romanian
history. The ruler did not resist and that facilitated the plotters action although the peoples
sympathy was on Cuzas side.
The Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Garcia Somoza ended his reign but also his life in
1956. He was shot by the nationalist poet Rigoberto Lopez Perez on the 21 st of September. While
his fellow from Guatemala, Carlos Castillo Armas (1954-1957) who owed his power to the CIA
actions was assassinated on the 26th of July 1957 by a member of his own guard.
Not few are those who lost their power and life at the same time. The previous statement
should worry the dictators. Maybe, who knows, it is better to treat all people as enemies by an
approach like all azimuths. Stalin treated all his close persons as enemies and died in his own
bed in March 1953. The aphorism uttered with much wisdom before a massacre in the open era
in the German space by Luthers reforms: God will recognise His own. may be brought in
order to support this idea.

One can find much good advice in this respect and many others at the immortal Niccolo
Machiavelli who said: Indeed, the difference is huge between how the people live and how they
are supposed to live that the one who leaves aside what it is for what it should be rather find how
people come to destruction than how to succeed in. The one who would like to proclaim his trust
in good anytime and anywhere would by necessarily cut down by the others who are around him
and who are not good people. 6
The most often used methods which permit a dictator to get rid of his political opponents
will be presented as it follows:
- Demonization of the opponent i.e. to create a malefic image for those who oppose
to the dictator. This is how the Romanian dictator Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej
successfully acted concerning some opponents: Lucreiu Ptrcanu, Teohari
Georgescu, Ana Pauker, Vasile Luca, Iosif Chiinevschi etc.
- Assassination i.e. physically suppression of the opponent. History definitely offers
many examples to follow in this respect. For instance, the dictator King Carol II of
Romania who had ordered the assassination of the Legionnaires movement chief
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu. The order was carried out on the night of 29/39 th of
November 1938 while the latter was moved from the prison in Rmnicu Srat to
Jilava together with the Nicadors (I. G. Ducas murderers) and Decemvrs (Mihai
Stelescus murderers). The public could know they had wanted to escape and
therefore they were all shot although it was night and a thick fog. 7
The history of Romania also presents another famous case of elimination of a
political opponent. Barbu Catargiu, the first prime-minister in Romanias past was
murdered by shooting on the 8th of June 1862. What is strange is the fact that the
conservatory politician was in the carriage of the police prefect at the time of the
assassination. If one were to be guided after the Latin dictum To whom is it useful?
one could consider him the moral author of ruler Alexandru Ioan Cuzas murder.
- Self-denunciation i.e. admitting by a person the fact that he committed deadly sins.
This method involves pre-arrest and torture. The method is masterfully described by
George Orwell in his masterpiece 1984 when he recurrently presents the man named
Emmanuel Goldstein who self-criticised or gushed with venom on the Partys
doctrines from the TV screen. Attitudes also efficient for the purposes nourished by
the dictatorial regime.
As a coincidence, one should be mentioned a certain Max Goldstein (1898-1924) a
Communist militant with anarchist tendencies who was the author of a bomb
attempt which took place in the Romanian Senate on the 8th of December 1921 and
resulted in the death of several people. He tried the assassination of the Ministry of
Domestic Affairs, Constantin Argetoianu, placing an explosive device under the
railway wagon which he was travelling in November 1920. Fortunately for the
minister, the infernal machine destroyed the empty half of the wagon.
6
7

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Bucharest, Mondero Press, 2004, p. 56-57.

Ioan Scurtu, Gheorghe Buzatu, op. cit., p. 352.

8
9

Framing judgement in a concocted trial. Preferable for common law offences. This
method was successfully used by Dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Although, the most
famous example of putting into practice of this method was offered by the dictator
King Carol II of Romania. This one imprisoned Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, head of the
Legionnaire movement in 1938. Firstly, the leader of the Iron Guard was sentenced to
six months of prison for outrage brought to a minister in exercise of duties as he
had criticised N.Iorga - not exactly harshly - in a letter. Then, he was sentenced to 10
years of penal servitude and civic degradation being accused of possession and
publicly reading of some secret documents, conspiracy against the social order and
rebellion.8
Another famous case is the one of the Communist leader Lucreiu Ptrcanu who
committed the serious error of being gifted by nature with sufficient qualities which
could propel him on the rule of the Romanian Workers Party in the detriment of
Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej.
Ptrcanu was arrested on charges of chauvinism - considered by the Communists
one of the most serious crimes - in August 1948. His trial was held behind closed
doors in April 1954 and it did not receive much popularity for that reason. The list of
his alleged crimes of his co-offenders was of 36 pages. Such a long memorial list
could only permit the death penalty for a leader of the Party who had the
thoughtlessness to declare himself a patriot when the new person was being built.9
Disclosure of some abdominal deeds and moral features or of some intensions.
The intension trial prosecution and sentencing of some persons on the assumption
they share certain ideas which they want to materialise.
Purification treatment involves the removal of certain categories of persons from
an organisation or a social body. The criteria for the removal can be ethnical, social,
etc. One can understand colonisation or internment in concentration camps, etc. by
removal relocation. Hundreds of thousands of persons undesirable for different
reasons were excluded from the R.W.P between 1948 and 1950. I.V. Stalin settled his
accounts with the Cossacks and Tatars who had collaborate with the Wehrmacht in
his view and he massively moved them for that reason. The Swabians from the
Romanian Banat were also moved as they had been accused of Titiosm by the
Communist regime (at the end of the fifth decade of the last century).
Terror physical and massively suppression of the potential and real opponents. One
can be brought into attention of the readers in order to highlight this way of
elimination the personality of Maximilien Franois Marie Isidore de Robespierre
(1758-1794) who came into attention in the troubled waters cased by the French
Revolution broken out in 1789. He became the head of the Committee of Public
Safety by which he established the Reign of Terror by guillotining all those
considered suspects regardless their political orientation. Robespierre also became a

Ibidem, p. 348-349.
***, History of Romania, Bucharest, Editura Corint Press, 2002, p. 412.

victim of his own creation terror being guillotined together with his loyal adepts.
The massacres continued in France despite his disappearance.
Mao Zedong generated a mass movement called the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution by which he eliminated his opponents between 1966 and 1969. That
movement degenerated into anarchy from which it emerged only with the army
support. However, Mao achieved its initial goals.
- Discredit means destroying the popularity of certain persons by any means. It is the
politicians favourite weapon in the so-called democratic states.
There is another solution to suppress political opponents drawn from the history of the
Roman Empire. It is about the proscription and that means outlawing certain people who
automatically may be killed by any individual. Moreover, the assassin gets a share of the wealth
of the one who had been murdered. This exceptional method was successfully applied during the
Roman civil wars of the 1st century BC by the dictators as Marius or Cornelius Sulla. The latter,
who terrorised Roma between 82 and 79 BC, must be said he was an atypical dictator as he gave
up the supreme power in 79 BC. I felt the need to make this clarification as a dictator who gives
up his power seems to be a heresy.
I have succinctly enumerated above the main methods of removal of political opponents
which are at any dictators hand who wants to strengthen his power. History is available for
those who want more sources of inspiration. There are many examples worth following for any
aspirant to the rank of supreme power holder in its chest.

Chapter VII
On the Elimination of Domestic and Foreign Dissidents
Dissidents are those who oppose the dictatorial regime from the inside or outside of the
arc of power, but who lack a real and continuous support from the supporters. Dissidents are
isolated islands in the ocean of power. They manifest themselves as isolated voices and try to
make up for the lack of real power by the messages they issue in an attempt to sensitise and
mobilize as many person as possible against the regime.
Most dissidents get refugee abroad from where they criticise without let or hindrance
through mass-media, sometimes with the blessing of the country of refuge. For instance, the
radio station Free Europe headquartered in Munich in FRG (Federal Republic of Germany)
was created by the CIA in order to send dissident messages about the Communist dictatorships in
Eastern Europe. In conclusion, it was a tool of dissident propaganda built with direct and
massive foreign support.
However, the dissidents who act within the borders of the country controlled by the
dictator risk more and often their deeds remain drown in anonymity. Their messages are spread
more difficult because of the dangers they expose to and therefore they especially use means of

underground communication. Books in SAMIZDAT system were multiplied and spread in

Romania of Ceausescus regime.
The dissident Doina Cornea wrote manifests which she distributed together with her son in
Cluj-Napoca in order to rally the people to the revolt of the workers in Brasov on the 15th of
November 1987. Thus, one can see how domestic dissidents risk more than the foreign ones and
the former lack the means of informational dissemination of the latter, and they need o
improvise.
Dissidents - even isolated - are very dangerous for the dictator as their actions may both
internally and externally create currents of opinion extremely unfavourable to the dictator which
may grow over time and lead to deepening the opposition towards the dictator. Dissidents are
particularly dangerous as they are usually scholars or scientists with an impeccable professional
and moral reputation and as a result their message is so easily accepted by the many.
It should be taken into consideration that the dissidents messages come to the awareness
of the public and especially to the international opinion more easily by exploiting mass media
means and under these circumstances there are many countries which claim themselves to be
democratic and are ready to use the dissidents messages in order to squeeze economic, political,
or of other nature benefits from the dictator. Does someone believe it is a coincidence that
whenever the presidents of the USA may come into contact with Chinese (for instance) officials,
they obsessively speak as Cato the Censor did about the violation of the human rights, this
Carthage of the USA foreign affair? Thus, if the dictator wants to have as long and peaceful
reign as possible, he should take draconian measures against the dissidents.
The steps of dissidences management are listed below:
1) Corruption (attracting the dissident into the system by certain pecuniary advantages).
2) Blackmail (threatening the dissident by different means in order to get a docile
behaviour).
3) Isolation (done by intimidating the dissidents closed people and creating a climate of
uncertainty around the dissident by blocking the means of subsistence, establishing a
forced domicile, etc).
4) Discredit (done by framing some disclosures by which some flaws preferably ethical
of the dissident).
5) Arrest for common law crimes. Note the aspect of common law crimes as a
dissidents arrest explicitly for opposing the dictatorial power is counterproductive and
transforms the dissident into a martyr. Therefore, producing some evidence is required
to lead to the arrest and conviction of the dissident. In order to blur the accusations of
framing which inevitably will circulate, the dictator could pardon the dissident later
on, simulating his total lack of interest in silencing the dissident or even facilitating the
dissidents leaving the country. The official propaganda definitely should insist on the
dictators clemency.
6) Mental alienation means inducting some psychiatric problems which eventually lead
to the dissidents hospitalisation in an asylum for mental diseases. This method was
successfully used by Nicolae Ceausescu.

7) Assassination the dictator should take much care not to use this method before

having tried the ones previously mentioned as, according to the ancient dictum To
whom is it useful? everybody will ask to whom the assassination of a dissident is
useful and the answer will definitely be to the dictator. The dictator should make
sure the death of the dissident should seem an unhappy accident and nothing more.
The appearance is vital to the dictatorial regime; it may make the difference regarding
strengthening or losing power. The dictator is a ship assaulted by numerous storms and
the dictator should pay much attention to the details and appearance in order to prevent
sinking. Even if some people may not be fooled, others will be confused.
At the end of this chapter I allow myself to recommend to the holder of the supreme
power increased attention to the way he treats the dissidences as they may catalyse latent
discontents under certain circumstances which may spread inside or outside the country. Such a
stance may be fatal for the total power of the dictator. It is useless to emphasise the importance
which the repression apparatus has for the success of a dictatorial regime in his perpetual war
with the dissidents.
The dictator should permanently be a fine and skilful prestidigitator as he may divert the
attention of the public opinion in his merciless struggle with the dissidence by an eternal and
necessary game of appearance.

Chapter VIII
On the Attitude towards the Ones Considered Valuable

Comparing the title of this chapter to the previous one, the reader would be tempted to consider
this chapter to be superfluous and that because the dissidents are usually recruited from the ones
considered valuable. Although, taking into consideration that not all valuable become dissidents,
I have considered this chapter is needed. I consider the dictator may significantly reduce the
number of the dissidents by having an appropriate attitude towards the ones considered valuable,
and why not, he may increase the efficiency of his dictatorial regime.
It is said that referring to Madame de Stal and to Chateaubriand, Napoleon would have
said: The minor literature is on my side and the important one is against me. The regret of the
one who wanted his pedestal supported by people prestigious by their talent comes from these
words. Instead he found himself caught in their crossed firing. Therefore, any dictator should
work hard in order to make sure the most possible valuable citizens are enrolled in the
mechanism of his regime.
The most valuable are the persons with superior intelligence, who manifest themselves
creatively in a certain field. Firstly, they must be identified at an early age. Preferably before
their personality guidelines have been shaped in a quasi-final form. The dictator should show
special care for the educational system for all these could become a credible form for filtering the

talents. On the other hand, he should prevent the development of some non-conformist characters
that may be metamorphosed into opponents of the regime. Thus, the system of detecting the
superior ones should be adjusted to the smallest details. The system should encourage the school
performances by mainly material distinctions and awards as nothing convince more than money.
The dictator should be aware of locating the superior is not enough; they also should be
grouped based on their value criteria for their endowments to be maximized and especially
directed in order that the system might not come in contradiction to the system of values
promoted by the dictatorial regime.
Once they become adults, they should be drawn in well-paid positions within the state
apparatus on the base of their features and results. Thus, the state - by its attitude - should make
the ones who are valuable to be clearly aware of their position privileged in the state is given in
equal proportions by their obedience towards the state and their only chance to succeed in life is
to work within and for the state apparatus.
This lesson was fully acquired by Augustus, for example, the first Roman Emperor, who
legalised two orders of nobility: equestrian and senatorial. The high-ranked officials were
selected from among them through a complex and rigorous process. A cursus honorum glorios
could be obtained only through work doubled by the emperors benevolence.
It went even further in the imperial China. If there was a pronounced air of caste
regarding the election of the military and civil servants in Rome, a hierarchical way to promote
was developed on the service of the state by study and competition and that seems more right in
China.
As the dictator rewards obedience and talent on the state service, he should also punish
any deviation from the line drawn by the regime. I take this opportunity to reiterate that an
excellent repressive apparatus is needed to identify the errors of the system.
Returning to the educational system, I suggest to the dictator he should structure it so that
the technical education might prevail over the theoretical one. School should especially produce
ultra-qualified workers and not theoreticians to question the absolute truths of the regime. On the
other hand, subjects as Politics, Philosophy, and Logics should be totally prohibited or taught as
to base the directions drawn by the regime. Thus, the social and political problems should be a
nebula in the citizens mind. The dictator should not forget that ignorance is an invitation to
dictatorship and therefore the dictator should keep the ignorance of his own people as a valuable
treasure. This task can be carried out with the interested collaboration of the ones who are
valuable. They will become the guardians of ignorance.
At the end of this chapter, I recommend much caution to the dictator concerning the
talents management as they may achieve great internal and external reputation by their activity
and may become formatters of opinions with audience and a possible desertion becomes
dangerous. Their adherence to the dissidents camp becomes probable at the same time with their
notoriety as people who are aware of their own value hardly bear the rein of an authoritarian
regime. In other words, like Nicolae Ceauescu did, the dictator should put an obstacle to
stardom immediately revealed by informers and punished as one of the greatest sins. The

existence of the so-called classics alive should not be permitted in a dictatorial regime. The
values should be praised only posthumously, and used efficiently during their lifetime.

Chapter IX
On Censorship, Manipulation and Indoctrination

And here I am at the one of the most important chapters of this work as censorship,
manipulation, and indoctrination form the spine of a dictatorial regime.
The control of the informational flow is vital for any dictator because, as everybody
knows, each state people regardless the political regime in which they activate make an ideal
image of themselves which try to impose to the masses. If this exercise of image is based on a
huge persuasive (demagogical) labour in democracy, achieving this desiderate is tried through a
strict informational control in a dictatorial regime.
On the other hand, it is much better and easier to achieve certain behaviour by persuasion
than coercion. The repressive apparatus should intervene only when the failure of the
propagandistic one becomes obvious.
In a dictatorial regime the system of propaganda has a quadruple role:
- To censor to filter the information that comes to the people by different
communication environments. The filtering has the classical principle of noncontradiction on a base. Thus, nothing should contradict the official ideological
discourse.
- To self-censor to achieve some mental competences (automatisms) expected by
enrolling the people in propagandistic activities, to eliminate the knowledge contrary
to the official ideology without external interventions. The contribution of the
educational system is of utmost importance in this respect.
- To manipulate to achieve a collective behaviour favourable to the holding of the
total power by only one person is aimed using the full range of the means of
dissemination of information.
- To indoctrinate this is an inherent aspect of the activities described above. The
indoctrination is based on the principles formulated by the scientist Pavlov referring
to the conditioned reflex. Repetitions are expected to transform each individual into
an automatic one with a way of thinking composed of stereotypes launched by the
state propaganda. The individual is not only a receiver, but also a transmitter as he
contributes to the spread of the supreme truths in his social circle due to
indoctrination.
The tasks of the propagandistic apparatus had been easier to achieve by the Modern Age
when the means of information were primitive or inexistent. The first newspaper for instance
appeared at the time of Caius Julius Caesar as some public bulletin boards by which the people

was acquainted with the different aspects of the Roman public life. However, the written press
became visible only in the 18th century when the printing press patterned by the German
Guttenberg in the 15th century started producing a higher yield.
The informational war entered a new era during the 20th century by the developing of the
means of audio-video communication. The situation became infinitely more complicated when
the computerized network called generically the internet was invented. Therefore, it can be said
the fight among the various truths is fiercer than ever today.
The flow of information cannot be stopped in a fully-fledged democracy, but on the other
hand, the effects of reaching the information to the end user are less devastating than in a
totalitarian regime. In the former case, power is established on a certain initial consensus
expressed in a ballot, while in the latter one, power is held under the virtue of the dictatorial
regime force. That is why the people should know only what does not threaten or contradict the
regime dogmas.
At the same time, it should be known dictators very often justify their power by a
particular situation and power exceptionality. The propaganda portrays the dictator in a
messianic aura in order to justify his position of keeper of the supreme power. In consequence, a
dictatorial regime is highly founded on lies. Exposing the lie could erode the foundations of the
dictatorial power.
The absolutist monarchies appealed the divine will in order to sustain the right to power
and their task was much easier as they had to maintain themselves under the virtue of a
traditional inertia, while a dictator must start from scratch. The classic case of a dictator
searching for legitimacy is the one of the Corsican Napoleon Bonaparte. Come to power amid
the French Revolution which could not give a practical expression to the ideological conquests,
the citizen Bonaparte fiercely struggled in order to justify his presence at the head of the French
state.
His domination started in the most dictatorial way possible by the coup of the 18th of
November (9th of November) 1799. Therefore, no one should be surprised that an entire chorus
of opponents immediately appeared. But the genius of Napoleon felt the pulse of the nation and
called the exiles, made peace (albeit ephemeral) with the perfidious Albion, came to an
agreement with Pope Pius VII (with whom he signed a Concordat) and all those brought the
clergys sympathy, and the most important, he seized the state structures.
After centuries of monarchy, the French understood better the sense of a crowned head
than the idealistic frenzy of a revolution compromised under the guillotine blade. Aware of that
and without press the public opinion, Napoleon Bonaparte became consul for life in 1802, he
was proclaimed emperor by the Senate in May 1804, and he put on his head the imperial crown
in the presence of the Pope on the 2nd of December of the same year. The exceptional times
permitted him to fully use the vein of Caesarism (a special persons necessity to save, to avoid
a collective disaster). The amazing strings of military victories and the domestic silence made
Napoleon I indispensable to the French. Like the Corsican Napoleon Bonaparte, any dictator
should look indispensable in the eyes of his subjects by repression, manipulation, censorship,
indoctrination or any other surrogate for the lack of the constant support of the people.

This series of divagation should be ended and see what the dictator can do to control the
access of the population to real information in real time.
There has been a constant preoccupation for blocking the access of the many to specific
knowledge for various dangerous reasons since ancient times. A quotation from the Bible can
be brought to support this statement, from the Acts of the Apostles (XIX, 19) on the visit of
Paul to Ephesus: And many of those who had made spells brought their witchcraft books and
burned them before all; their price was reckoned to be fifty thousand pieces of silver as for the
famous Congregation of the Index, I have already spoken about in this volume.
Right after their ascending to power, the Nazi stigmatised the Degenerated art which
was taken out of the museums and burnt piles of undesirable books in public squares. The
Communist authorities of Romania had a habit of publishing brochures real blacklists in
which the Prohibited Publications were pointed.
Under the light of those mentioned above, any respectable dictatorial regime will deal
with setting up a censorship office which has as a main task to prevent the spread of the
information inaccurate for the dictatorial reality.
The obligation for the mass-media institution to get prior approval for any information
which to be conveyed is to be imposed at the legislative level. No book is to be printed, no
article is to be published no radio or TV show is to be broadcast on air without the approval of
the censorship office.
The censorship office employees are to be necessarily persons with a rich general culture
able to rapidly and efficiently locate the subversive messages hidden in the texts or pictures.
Ignorant censors are a calamity as they cannot capture the subtlety of the ideas transmitted on
the artistic path see the case of the troublesome Tom-cat Arpagic created by Ana Blandiana.
In addition, the dictator should allow only the existence of a small number of newspapers,
magazines, presses, and radio and TV stations. At the same time, he should take care as the
programs broadcast on the other states territories to be scrambled preventively in order to put
an obstacle to any possible criticism that could come on this way. It goes without saying that the
internet is to be censored. Certain sites accessing is to be made impossible.
A strict control over the transmission-reception stations and the means of multiplying the
texts (typewriters, copiers, printers, etc.) is to be imposed as well. A licence from the competent
authorities is to be got in order to own the devices previously mentioned.
The prior check is only a stage in the long and winding road of the censorship. The office
responsible for purifying the flow of information is subsequently to check if its instructions
have been totally followed. Any deviation from the directives of the censorship office should be
promptly sanctioned.
It is advisable the state should permit the existence of only few publishing houses and
only in its property. In this way, it is simpler to control the rhythm of the editorial works.
The presence of a representative of the censorship office can also be imposed as a
backup solution in every newspaper editor, press, television, etc. Only this way can any
attempt to undermine the state order be counter in due time.

A serious dictatorial regime should develop self-censorship in the individuals mind

besides censorship. This is the capacity of each individual to resist the infestation of his mind
with ideas drained through the floodgates of the censorship office. Self-censorship is the result
of a long effort of indoctrination achieved by the obsessive repetition of the guiding principles
of the regime with the help of the means of information available at the state hand. A person
should have as little available time as possible for the work of indoctrination to be successful.
Engaging the people in pleasant and compulsory sports activities may solve this problem as it
takes any trace of free time. Does chess randomly become so popular in Soviet Russia or boxing
in Communist Cuba?! The pillars of the official dogma will be deeply embedded in the citizens
brains and any piece of news come from the regime will automatically have an axiomatic
character.
Next, I will draw the dictators attention to an aspect usually neglected by him: religion.
This can be a reliable ally for a regime considering the great importance it has on the inner life
of many individuals. If the great dictatorship of the 20th century had a pronounced atheistic side
and that only made more difficult their task of submitting the collective will. The ecclesiastical
subordination is considered highly profitable for the dictator. The news which comes from the
pulpit becomes even more credible. In this respect, the case of the Portuguese dictator Antonio
de Oliveira Salazar is illustrative; in 1932 he drafted the project of a constitution inspired by the
Papal Bulls issued by Leon XIII and Pius IX.
One believes it will look good to the crowd if the dictator proves to be a pious person
supporting the raising new churches, attending the Sunday services, etc. Hypocrisy can be a
reliable ally.
He dictator should maintain the illusion he does not take any decision directly for a more
efficient manipulation. I.e. he should rule from the shadow, and different characters preferable
dull ones promoted by the dictator on the principle of full obedience to the dictator should
appear into the forefront of the political life. One should act in this way as the unexpected
situations may strike wherever and whenever, but if the dictator is not surrounded by
scapegoats in due time, the unexpected one may strike directly on him.
Thus, Stalin put the regimes failure on some persons as Leon Trotsky, Marshal
Tuhacevski, and Bukharin etc. He executed them and some of his torturers as Nikolai Yezhov or
Iagoda proving great skill in the art of maintaining power; and he gave the impression the
regime abuses due to them.
Marshal Ion Antonescu put the excesses of the National Legionary State on Horia Sima
and his associates, while Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej used Lucreiu Ptrcanu or Ana Pauker in
the same way.
In the book of great value The School for Dictators written by the Italian Ignazio
Silone one can find an important chapter suggestively entitled On the Plebiscitary Consensus,
the Synaesthesia State-Party and the Intensive Growing of Scapegoats. I have extracted a
magnificent quotation from this chapter, a quotation that eloquently expresses the role of the
scapegoats in a strong-handed regime:

Against the evils of any kind, the dictatorships know an authentic panacea: sacrificing
proper scapegoats. It is an expeditious method, immune to the inconveniencies of the
democratic method, with its scandalising campaigns, interminable parliamentary discussions,
and inconclusive commissions of investigation and trials which take decades. Moreover, the
sacrifice of the scapegoats offers the illusion of a rough control of the public administration.
Besides the need of justice, it also satisfies the one - less noble and spread - of revenge.
Therefore, I allow myself to state a vast supply of scapegoats matched with the most diverse
occurrences is indispensable to the security of the authoritarian state at least as the growing of
the cattle is for a healthy agriculture.10
It is believed the dictator should surround himself by a double belt of scapegoats for a
better protection. The former belt will be composed of wild scapegoats and the latter of
domestic scapegoats
Wild scapegoats are the natural enemies of the regime, the ones to which the antibodies
of the dictatorial system react on their own. History offers a long list of guilty for everything in
this respect: the kulaks, the white, the counterrevolutionaries, reactionaries, Jews, monarchists,
nationalists, Communists, Fascists, Legionnaires, etc.
Domestic scapegoats are those which the dictator recruits from his own midst,
preferably from the potential claimants to power. The dictator should promote in key positions
when the times are troubled persons whom to sacrifice for his own benefit at the proper time.
Previously, the dictator should make sure that those persons are obedient and lacking charisma
so that they might not threaten his power. As for those who long for the first position in the
state, they are better left for the repressive apparatus which will take care to transform them in
genuine scapegoats.
The dictator can successfully counter the possible decreases of popularity or avoid his
metamorphosis in the meeting point of the grievance nourished by ordinary people surrounded
by this double belt.
I strongly believe I should not insist any longer on the importance of measures described
in this chapter to strengthen and maintain the power in a dictatorial regime. They reveal their
usefulness at the first reading and I hope the worshipers of the absolute power will assimilate
and deepen them properly.
Chapter X
On the Role of the Dictators Family and Friends

Regarding the role which the dictators family should play in the regime, there are two
diametrically opposed points extracted from the teachings of the past.

10

Ignazio Silone, The School for Dictators, Cluj-Napoca, Dacia Press, 2005, p. 129.

Firstly, the dictatorial regimes which gave great importance to the tyrants family and its
members came to hold functions of high responsibility in the state apparatus can be presented.
The premise that the blood relations are more durable than any others was at the base of such
conduct. Thus, true dictatorial dynasties were born such as: dynasty Julia-Augusta created by
Augustus, the Flavian dynasty started by Vespasian (69-79AC) continued by Titus (79-81) and
ended by Domitian (81-96 AD), Somoza of Nicaragua dynasty which remained in power from
1937 to 1979, the family of Trujillo Molina in the Dominican Republic, or Kim il-Sung (19481984) and Kim Jong-il (father and son) who have dominated North Korea since 1948.
But the best-known example of promoting the members of his own family in positions of
maximum importance is the one of the first emperor of the French, Napoleon Bonaparte. This
one married his sisters with characters at the head of certain states or who were propelled by him
there, and his elder brother Joseph Bonaparte was named King of Naples in 1806 and King of
Spain in 1808.
Such a way was also traced by the tyrant of Romania, Nicolae Ceausescu who deeply
planted the roots of his family in the state structures and who was assisted by his wife, Elena
Ceausescu, as regarding the decisions making.
In contrast with those mentioned above, there were dictatorial regimes in which the
holder of the supreme power built his regime by eliminating some members of his own family or
chose to keep the blood relations away fearing of their hidden intentions. Some dictators were
not satisfied only to keep away his own family, but also executed some elements in its bosom
under different pretexts. It can be mentioned in this respect the case of the Herod the Great, King
of Judea (31 BC-4 AD) with the Romans blessing. Proving a high degree of psychical
instability, he killed his wife, Mariamne together with her entire family and her first son,
Antipater.
The series of these dramatic events may be continued with the case of the Tsar Ivan IV
the Terrible (1530-1584) who killed his son and heir, Ivan V because of a rage attack.
In contrast, King of Romania, Carol II got limited to keep the members of his family
away starting with his own mother Queen Maria. He exiled the mother of his child, Elena and
took away his brother and sisters, in other words, he eliminated all the persons he was
connected by blood from the arc of power. This king offered a magnificent piece of filial
cynicism as he opposed to move his mother in Germany by air in order that she might receive
adequate medical treatment for her disease on the reason that the plane would have cost too
much.
It can be brought into discussion for the sake of variation at least one case when a
person related to the dictator succeeded him to the countrys rule although he was not really
liked by his illustrious relative. It is about Carlos Antonio Lopez who was the leader of
Paraguay from 1840 to 1862. By the death of his uncle Dr. Francia (1814-1840) he had had to
stay away of the power nucleus and even hide for a few years as the first Paraguayan dictator
hostility towards Lopezs person had increased. Despite this situation, his abilities permitted
him to climb into the place left free by the death of his uncle.

There is another category of dictatorial regimes created precisely by eliminating some

members of the own family. An example can be the case of the Roman Emperor Caracalla who
ruled together with his brother Geta between 211 and 212 and who he finally assassinated in the
presence of their mother in order to hold the power for himself.
The dictator should choose from these options according to the relationships he has with
his family. Though, he should not have any restraint in suppressing members of his own family
if the situation requires because power knows no compromising and certainly it does not love
the weak. If blood relatives are needed to be sacrificed on the altar of power, then, be it so.
Otherwise, the power lover can say good-bye to the dictatorship and engage himself into
activities more suitable to his nature.
No matter which way the dictator may turn, he should be extremely careful to the impact
on the masses because ordinary people tend to classify those who do what they have not even
the courage to think at as beasts and the ones who co-opt their relatives to state rule are
perceived as indifferent to their needs. There are few people who agree with living in a state
ruled on the criteria of the crasser nepotism. Thus, this is the risk involved in relating to the state
as to a personal property when the appearance is not kept.
If the dictator decides to keep a distance from his blood relations for various reasons, he
should do it in an elegant and firm way. Elegance is for the people and firmness for the
relatives. I incline towards this kind of approach because power is like a lighthouse which
inevitably attracts all the ships towards it. Thus, the dictators relatives should be brought in a
state in which to realize that they are just stardust without the protective cloak of the supreme
one. Thus, they will happily collaborate to strengthen the dictators power as if it were about
their own power. In short, the relatives should depend on the dictator and not vice versa.
I am convinced as well that a dictator who cares about his image would sanction
immediately any illegal act done by his own family. Thus, he will prove his commitment to
justice which always seduces the stupid, but many after the inspired expression of the writer
Costache Negruzzi.
As for the friends, I just say the following: the dictator does not have friends, he has only
accomplices. Therefore, there is nothing more pathetic in this world than a dictator who lives
with the impression of having friends or at least he could have as the only friendship of the
dictator is the rough power.
Chapter XI
On What It Is Called the Cult of Personality

The human personality has always been eager for appreciation and praise. The others
consideration - deserved or not - is an imperious necessity for most of the characters, but few
have the features to impose such behaviour in the collective mentality. Even though, the esteem
of the many is difficult to get and easy to lose and therefore, it is easier and more efficient to

receive tributes from some people whom are terrorised by absolute force. The extreme form of
self adulation called generically the cult of personality in the wooden language of the
Communist propaganda has been achieved in this manner. More precisely, the term was put into
circulation by Stalin successor Nikita Khrushchev when referring to the former.
The glorious predecessors of the dictators of the 20th century were the emperors of the
Ancient Rome regarding the cult of personality. Their faces were engraved on coins; their
statues dominated the temples which were dedicated to them and where they were worshiped by
their subjects, artists, poets, and writers who surpassed themselves in bringing praises and, after
the emperors death, the apotheosis followed i.e. enrolling the deceased emperor among the
gods.
Gaius Plinius Secundus, better known as Pliny the Elder (Pliny Major) was among the
ones who dealt with polishing the Imperials. His monumental work, Naturalis Historia (37
books), starts with a dedication addressed to the eldest son of Emperor Vaspasian (69-79 AD),
namely Titus Flavius Vespasianus who reigned between 79 and 81 AD. At the beginning of the
dedication, the author insists to say: I have decided to present you in a friendly letter my latest
literary creation, the books of the Encyclopaedia of Nature, a real novelty for the Romans
muses, my All-valued Emperor. I call you All-valued because this is the most appropriate title
for you while the one of Maximus gets older together with your father.11
As in any dedication made in honour of a powerful man of the time, Pliny coagulates an
ideal portrait of Titus who could be equally true or false: You have achieved triumph, you have
been a censor, six times a consul, have had the tribune power and the much more important
function of prefect of the praetor, who serves both the Equestrian Order and your father. These
are what you represent for the state. [...] No one has ever been told more founded he holds the
striking force of the word and the tribune power of eloquence. The praises you bring to your
father sound like the thunder! How nice are the ones bestowed to your brother! What heights you
have reached in poetry! How large is the fruitfulness of your soul! 12 However, the words above,
no matter how flattery they may seem, do not affect at all the intrinsic value of the book, let us
forget Machiavelli for instance dedicated The Prince to Lorenzo de Medici.
The imperial title also included the word Augustus which means, in a rough translation,
could mean the one called/destined to provide prosperity and that prefigures the pompous and
slightly mystical titles which the champions of the totalitarianism arrogated to themselves in the
century of speed.
The cult of personality, be it well understood, was a constant presence in the past of
humanity. It can be found on all continents, at all the people in different stages of their evolution.
It sometimes appears dimmed, other times more luxuriant; yet, the modern dictatorships have
been those which have exacerbated what was more a concession to the self up to then. One
definitely cannot equate Louis XIV who took as a motto: Nec pluribus impar (superior to all)
11

Plinius, Naturalis historia. The Encyclopaedia of the Ancient Knowledge , vol. I,Iai, Polirom Press, 2001,
p. 15.
12
Ibidem.

and as a symbol of his power the sun for which he was called Sun King and a Stalin or a Hitler
who not only assumed all the imaginable qualities, but also required to be worshiped in
proportion to the qualities and achievements which they had attributed.
The worship of the twentieth-century dictators took place through Pharaoh public
manifestations where the performances and speeches endlessly praised the one who was head of
the state. The omnipresence of the portraits is self evident and they depict the unique and
unequalled possessor of the absolute power. Moreover, the dictators anniversaries were
moments when the entire country addresses the warmest thanks to the one who made them happy
with his existence in a single voice. These are only few aspects of the complex phenomenon
which is the cult of personality and which has bypassed no dictatorial regime because, as
Winston Churchill used to say: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
An exemplary cult of personality was staged by the Chinese dictator Mao Zedong by
the mass hysteria which remained in history as the Cultural Revolution and the famous Red
Booklet with quotations from Maos work and which any individual possessed. These are real
masterpieces of the genre.
It is useful for the reader to list the titles of some of the most famous dictators as it
follows: Benito Mussolini (Italy, 1922-1945) who wanted to be addressed Il Duce (The Duke);
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1933-1945) who took the name of Fhrer (The Leader); Trujillo
Molina (Dominican Republic, 1930-1961) who answered at the name of The Benefactor;
Francisco Franco (Spain, 1939-1975) who was called Caudillo (The Head of State), and
Marshal Ion Antonescu who did not wanted to be lower (Romania, 1940-1944) and therefore he
became The Leader for the people.
The aberrant forms of the cult of personality were also reflected in the works of some
world recognition writers such as Gabriel Garcia Marquez. His genius masterfully emphasised
the mental depressions of the South-American dictatorship by the novel Autumn of the Patriarch.
The brilliant sparks of Marquezs masterpiece highlight the multitude of the abysses of the cult
of personality and the narcosis which is installed into the tyrants mind making him immune to
the ordeals of the concreteness. For example, below it is quoted an extract from the novel, which
refers to the dictators deceased mother:
None of us were old enough to witness that death, but the echo of the funerals arrived
up to our times and we had strong evidence he was never the man who had been before for the
rest of his life, nobody had the right to disturb his orphan insomnias for a long time after the one
hundred days of national mourning [...] while his beloved mother, Bendicin Alvarado, was
travelling through the desert beaten by heat and dirt in a coffin full of sawdust and lumps of ice
not to rot more than in her life as they carried her body in a solemn procession through the most
remote corners of his kingdom so that nobody might be deprived of the privilege to honour her
memory. 13
Another El Dorado of the dictators made as pathological as hilarious gestures in other
parts of the world such as Africa. Ugliness reached paroxysm in the Central African Republic
13

Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Autumn of the Patriarch, Bucharest, Rao Press, 2005, p. 127-128.

during Eddine Ahmed Bokassas reign who became president in 1965 as a result of a military
action. Considering it was under his dignity to rule a poor Republic, he renamed his country the
Central African Empire in 1976. The ridicule was completed with an opulent coronation and a
self-awarding of a expensive crown in 1977. Unfortunately for him and fortunately for his
subjects, Bokassa was removed from power in 1979. This is how the short and glorious existence
of the Central African Empire ended.
There was another famous case on the black continent, too, a case of mismatch between
the leader and the nothingness of the subordinated state. More precisely, on the 4 th of August
1984, the all-honoured Thomas Sankara, the leader of the honourable the Republic of Upper
Volta decided to become the sovereign of Burkina Faso - i.e. The Country of the people of
integrity in a rough translation - by a modest operation of renaming. A gesture absolutely
justified if considered the name Upper Volta was a vestige of the ignoble colonial period.
Moving from Africa to The Old Continent, one can see this one was not bypassed by
the dementia of the cult of personality either. Romania, to take a single case, met two
extremely fertile periods considering the forced sublimation of the leaders merits and features.
First, it was King Carol II who was followed by Nicolae Ceausescu at a distance of few decades.
Monarch Carol II started his career as dictator when crowned on the 10th of February
1938. After that day, the mass media were mobilized in order to unreservedly eulogize the head
of state the saviour, the providential man, and the voivode of culture. The radio
broadcast declarations, proclamations, reports on the Kings visits, panegyrics uttered by
scientists and men of culture, artists, etc. every day. The press dedicated pages and pages to
Carol II whose picture had to be well engraved in the readers mind. 14
The Communist despot Nicolae Ceausescu proved much generosity when permitting the
ones who were around him to praise him without any hindrance unwilling to be lower in any
way. Thus, the ears of the nations were often besieged by expressions as the brilliant
helmsman, the beloved son of the Romanian people, outstanding personality of the
contemporary world, the genius of the Carpathians. He generated a double premiere, a
national and a world one in 1974. Namely, he became the first President of Romania and the first
ruler of Republic equipped with a sceptre. This double realisation did not escape to Salvador
Dalis fine irony, and he could not resist the temptation to congratulate the new sovereignpresident.
Another interesting element of the phenomenon known as the cult of personality is
renaming of the cities or the forms of relief after his own name. For example, the case of the
dictator of Zaire (today Congo) Mobutu Sese-Seko (1965-1997) it can be brought into discussion
who felt the need to name one of the greatest lakes of Africa (Lake Albert) after his stage name
as his real name was Joseph Dsir Mobutu.
This phenomenon dates back to Antiquity when Alexander the Great named 23 cities
Alexandria. However, unlike his rivals in the contemporary age, these cities which were spread

14

Ioan Scurtu, Gheorghe Buzatu, op. cit., p. 349.

all over the empire and created thanks to his military genius had been set by the famous son of
the Macedonian king Philip II. Thus, they do not fall under renaming, but megalomania.
In contrast, the Roman Emperor Commodus (180-192) perfectly falls under the category
mentioned above. The son of the philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180), Commodus
changed the name of the eternal city replacing the dull Rome with Colonia Lucia Annia
Commodiana.
Coming closer to our times, it is worth mentioning that the Bolshevik Revolution of
Russia (1917) opens a new era concerning the cities renaming. Shortly after Lenins death in
1924, the town Sankt-Petersburg, recently called Petrograd became Leningrad. Stalin obviously
did not want to be lower and he called the city Tsaritsyn as Stalingrad. But Nikita Khrushchev,
the one who raised so many praises to the beloved ruler Stalin when he had been still alive,
decided to change the name of the city again calling it Volgograd a more neutral name in
1961 when Stalin was death.
The phenomenon of renaming also came into Romania by the illustrious Gheorghe
Gheorghiu-Dej. The town Oneti bore his name for a while and the Polytechnic University of
Bucharest as well. He definitely could not help but follow the teachings of papa Stalin as well,
and the city Braov bore the name of Stalins city in his honour for a while.
The fascinating overview of the phenomenon of renaming will be ended with a dictator
from Central America, called Trujillo (1930-1961) who won the bet with posterity as he raised
the interest of a writer as Mario Vargas Llosa. The one who has received the Nobel Prize in
Literature recently put his life in the service of the one who ruled the Dominican Republic in
order to create a special novel entitled The Feast of the Goat. Passing over these absolutely
necessary digressions, Trujillo changed the name of the capital Santo Domingo in Ciudad
Trujillo.
It can be noticed from the tone of those presented above that I nourish an intense aversion
to the cult of personality in its most shameless form. The cult of personality is not a goal, but
a means at the dictators hand in the wild fight for uncontested authority. A cult of personality
in undertone can cement the link between the dictator and power. Exaggeration can generate a
counter reaction. Therefore, some arguments under which I plead for a moderate cult of
personality are to be presented:
- No person of average intelligence cannot believe the statements spat with
offhandedness by the official propaganda. The torrent of praises will make the
ordinary man to see a lunatic in the person of the dictator.
An aggressive cult of personality will prove to everybody the state ruled by a
dictator is undoubtedly a totalitarian state. Only this kind of regime has the necessary
levers for imposing a personal vision on a national scale, and as be seen in the
previous chapters, the appearance is vital for a regime ruled by manu militari
measures.
- It is impossible for a country not to pass less auspicious periods economically,
socially, etc. once in a while. The dictators glorification automatically leads to
associating the troubles with his person under these circumstances.

Any person who lives surrounded by lies ends to believe them finally and make
decisions based on false impressions which the lies induce. As the cult of
personality is by excellence an abdication of the sense of reality in front of
megalomania, any decision of the dictator may a possible error which can turn as a
boomerang against him. A dictator should keep his lucidity as only this can maintain
him in power.
Therefore, any dictator who wants to have a long reign should promote a little more
discreet cult of personality avoiding the ridicule and many other dangers.
Chapter XII
On the Relations of the Dictatorial State with the Other States

States have numerous enemies like any ordinary person. Some enemies are natural while others
are created by the hidden machineries of the history. A Communist state is naturally opposed to a
capitalist one. Nazi Germany was the declared enemy of the Soviet Union. Numerous Muslim
countries hate Israel without having their own reason. Besides these examples, the cases when
the countries hate one another for pragmatic reasons having different economic, military,
political, etc. interests are more numerous.
A state structure led by a dictatorial regime has many enemies by definition. Therefore,
the relationships which such regime develops are vital to its survival. Different actors on the
international stage frequently supported the military movements directed against the totalitarian
leaderships. The dictator should be careful by his attitude to prevent such a situation and not to
create unfoundedly redoubtable opponents. Promoting a realistic diplomatic offensive is needed
in this respect and it should also not neglect any state no matter how insignificant it might seem.
A skilful foreign policy could keep the dictator away from many troubles.
If the dictatorial regime is strong (e.g. The Soviet Union or China), the fears are lower,
but if the state is small and unstable, the fears which the neighbours raise are definitely higher. In
the former case it can be spoken about a dictator in its own rights, while in the latter it is dealt
with dictatorships which are instable and predisposed to dependency on the foreign centres of
power.
A weak dictatorship cannot survive without the benevolence of a great power as the latter
normally tends to maximize its authority. Obviously, this benevolence is gained and maintained
by certain sacrifices. The sovereignty of the dictatorial state is as if inexistent in this case, and
the regimes force is founded on the obedience which proves to the tutelary power. This is an
extremely unpleasant situation for the dictator as he got the leadership of his country as if it were
rented. The exit from this ship wake left by a great power cannot be done only by moving under
another protective umbrella with all its advantages and disadvantages which involve such a
decision. The state is doomed to disappear without the protection from another powerful member
of the international relations. This was the case of the regime of Nicolae Ceausescu which had

escaped from Moscows strict control and was eliminated by orchestrating a revolution in which
the dictator lost his life in 1989.
Democratic regimes are likely to exist within certain states in the world, but there is no
such a thing at the international level. Big fish will swallow or share the small ones by virtue of
the attraction of the powerful state to the weak one. The interstate relationships are founded on
brute force despite the illusions built and propagated by some people. This reality must be taken
into consideration by the dictator more than anything else.
The dictator should be aware of the fact that ideology goes on a secondary plan against
the interests. There were many cases when democratic countries such as the USA, France, or the
UK actively collaborated with dictatorial regimes despite the affection pretended to be nourished
towards respecting the human rights. Washington supported the installation in power of Augusto
Pinochet dictatorship in Chile in 1974 and got very well with Sadam Hussein by the early 90s in
the recently ended the century. The Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf who seizes power on the
12th of October 1999 as a result of a coup also enjoyed the USAs protection. He gave up the
power in 2008 when he lost Uncle Sams precious support. In conclusion, a non-democratic
regime can find points of connection with a democratic regime to the benefit of both states and
the dictator should skilfully speculate this reality.
Thus, if the dictator wants to have a long and smooth reign, he must stay away of the
exclusive influence of a great power. He will course a slalom among the spheres of influences of
several superpowers in this respect, hoping their influences to neutralize one another, but this is a
dangerous game and requires much finesse and diplomacy.
The dictator Idi Amin Dada (1971-1979) of Uganda shows how one should not act on the
interstate relations front. The illustrious Idi Amin Dada provoked the brakeage of the diplomatic
relationships between the UK and his country. Idi Amin Dada proclaimed this fact as a triumph
and celebrated it self-awarding the medal of Conqueror of the British Empire.
One must say there were cases when a dictator got refuge in a regime of autarchic type in
order to avoid the status of vassal of a great power. The first and the most representative example
which comes in my mind in this direction is illustrated by the Communist dictator of North
Korea Kim Il Sung (1948-1994) known as the Eternal President after his death. Kim Il Sung is
the creator of the Juche Idea which claims more than everything the full sovereignty of a
country in relation to others. North Korea was quasi totally isolated from the rest of the states in
order to safeguard its precious sovereignty and this ended in a major economic collapse which
starved the North-Korean population in the last decade of the last century. Millions of people of
North Korea are supposed to have died at that time. Thus, a nation cannot be cloistered in a
world in full process of globalisation.
History also shows another example when a dictator relied on isolation as a solution to
protect the independence of his nation. It is about Jos Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia y Velasco
who governed the destinies of Paraguay from 1813 to 1840. He was PhD in Theology and
passionate researcher of philosophy and tried to embody an ideal of philosophers which had
started with Plato: the philosopher king. Whether he managed to do this or not is not known, but
he certainly closed the borders of the country prohibiting the foreign commercial trades and the

free movement of the persons as well. He motivated that attitude stating he had tried to prevent
an increasing of the public debt.
In retrospect, one can state Dr. Francia managed to protect his country from the greedy
capitalists of Europe and North America, but unlikely North Korea, he did not face the
accelerated globalisation of the contemporary society. On the other hand, his countrys
modernisation suffered.
No matter the pluses and minuses of the personality called The Supreme might have
been, his posterity existence fall into the hands of a talented writer Augusto Roa Bastos and it
was poured into the bronze of the letters through the novel I, the Supreme. The literary talent
may maculate and sublime the most sordid human faced and therefore, a bloody despot as
Napoleon became a hero and an emperor with poetical ambitions as Nero became the
embodiment of Satan.
I allow myself to draw the dictators attention once again on appearances. He should
create the illusion all possible democratic right exists in the state for nobody to accuse him of
deficit of democracy. A worth copying example is showed by the Communist Romania.
Romania used to have an administrative-territorial unit pompously called The Magyar
Autonomous Region (The Mure-Magyar Autonomous Region from 1960) between 1952 and
1968. Obviously, it was a diversion meant to show to the West there are democratic rights in
Romania. After all, a regime of popular democracy operated in Romania. In reality, The
Magyar Autonomous Region was just a piece in the extensive gear of the Communist
propaganda and must be treated as it is.
In consequence, the dictator should be very skilful and repudiate any radical gesture
concerning the international relationships. He should be firm, but not rigid, flexible, but not
servile, and never lose from his sight his personal interest. In other words, the dictator should be
like an iron fist gloved in velvet.
Chapter XIII
On the Importance of Economic Prosperity

The first place in any dictators concerns should be the economic prosperity of his country. Its
absence may create or destroy a strong-handed regime. In other words, the lack of the economic
prosperity is an extremely dangerous double-edged sword.
Many totalitarian or democratic regimes found their end precisely because they had not
understood the capital importance of economic prosperity. The Roman emperors had assimilated
this important lesson and therefore they used to tickle the mobs vanity with different gifts of
money or food and the frequent gladiators games organized on the expense of the one whose face
was on the sestertius should not even be mentioned. The very adequate phrase bread and circus
comes right from those times and it is the simplest and most efficient way to got the plebeians
affection.

In contrast, the ordinary man Louis XVI of France who was concerned about Frances
military prestige and the Versailless luxury aroused a storm which covered in one way or
another the entire Europe. It is called the French Revolution. Starvation took the masses of
rioters out in the street more than anything else and not necessary the monarchic absolutism as
some people wants to be believed. The economic insecurity made the Parisians to see all the
flaws of the regime on which the common Louis XVI was perched. And they stormed the
Bastille on behalf of hunger on the glorious day of 14th of July 1789. Maybe because they hoped
to find there the famous cake which the Austrian consort of the king (Marie Antoinette) urged
them to put instead of the usual bread.
It was also the lack of efficiency (firstly the economic one) of the Directorate which
permitted the Corsican Napoleon Bonaparte to orchestrate a coup on the 9 th of November 1799.
As he put an order into the moral decay inherited from the previous regime, he gained the
extremely instable attachment of the people. One can see in that the lack of a coherent economic
policy may destroy a regime and create another, but no regime is strengthened without providing
the basic needs of the nation.
If the forceful rise of Benito Mussolini is studied, one can notice he received the power
due to the economic and political chaos in which Italy had been submerged. The Italian state
crossed a favourable period from the economic point of view after 1922 and that gifted The
Dukes regime with strength. A series of economic and social merits are recognized to belong to
him even today, to the one who lowered unemployment, fought with the Mafia and made the
trains to arrive on time. One can suspect that Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini - together with
his mistress Claretta Petacci - was definitely shot for his errors and not for his merits in 1945.
They had the privilege to be hanged upside down in Milan after that for the crowds pleasure in
an interesting social experiment which demonstrated once again the many can enjoy the success
and the disaster of a personality as well. A lesson which should not be forgotten by any dictator.
Adolf Hitler and NSDAP came to power on the 30th of January 1933. Raising to the rank
of Chancellor the former corporal would not have been possible without the massive contribution
of the Great Depression started in the USA in 1929. That fully struck the German economy
which had already been weakened by losing the World War I giving rise to millions of desperate
unemployed. On the other hand, the economic success of the Third Reich significantly
strengthened the Nazi regime.
As a consequence, the aspirants to the title of dictator are advised by the historys
experience to try to create a personal regime at the time when the people are impoverished by the
economic policies of those in power. However, the strengthening of a regime created in this way
cannot be achieved without abolishing the causes which had led to its installation.
Many dictators made the mistake to be insensitive to the immediate needs of the crowd.
Therefore, they lost their power or even their own life. Fervently wishing to get rid of the
dependency on the Western financing, the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu launched an
ambitious plan of entire payment of the external debt in 1982. This early repayment of the loans
was made on the citizens account who were blessed with the rationing of the food having
rations and cards as during the war. The rationing was also extended to other basic necessity

products and that delighted even more the Romanians. Finally, all the external loans were paid in
1989 and the one who made that possible was dethroned and executed in a coup/revolution. A
regime which does not place the basic needs of the nation in the first position put itself in a
vulnerable situation providing ammunition to its enemies. It is easy to please the many and
stupid not to do it.
Chapter XIV
On the Unjustified Academic Ambitions of Dictators

Both ordinary and special people are flattered by the idea that they are endowed with an
exceptional intellect. Even the last ignoramus claims to be considered smart and is profoundly
offended by the well-disserved stupid. Even more will an individual with mainly intellectual
concerns use words as masses, ordinary, ignoramuses, small fish, or riff-raff for the rest of the
mortals as would speak Zarathustra , the one created by Fr. Nietzsche. So, it is very easy to
exclaim from the top of the absolute knowledge mountain: Human, too human!
If one has absolute and as telluric and palpable as possible powers, one fully deserves the
title of dictator. Obviously, a series of inconveniences come together with the power. For
instance, the one will be stormed by cohorts of opportunists who will fawn over only to get
advantages. The trust given to such insects is a good method of self-destruction. However, it is
difficult or even impossible not to step on those who make themselves rugs in front of you with
so much zeal. This is how the much despised cult of personality is born and to which almost
all dictators fell victim. But a cult of personality is not complete without an academic
component. As a dictator is undoubtedly the owner of a superior intellect and all mortals must be
aware of this. Thus, nobody should be amazed many tyrants had also academic ambitions
proving that the ridicule has no limits exactly like the universe.
The famous Nero (54-68 AD) was a man who lost the bet with posterity. It is as clear as
possible he did not receive a quite good PR. The fact that this poor Caesar claimed not quite
groundless to be also accepted as an artist can be find in the long convoy of more or less
deserved horrors assigned to him. He frequently went on stage to show the Romans how
remarkable talent lies in their emperor. General Vespasian, the future emperor, is said to have
had the disagreeable habit to fall asleep during Neros performances and that was the reason why
he was sent to quell the riotous Jews. In consequence, theatre and poetry were Neros real
inclinations, but his contemporaries did not appreciate him and rioted to get rid the Roman
Empire of him. He was forced to commit suicide surrounded by enemies. The historians of the
times, to whom objectivity I do not question, cannot find any positive element in Neros reign
such a strange unanimity of views and they say he had exclaimed before passing away: Oh,
what an artist is dying with me!
The philosopher king Frederick II (1740-1786) appeared in Prussia eighteen centuries
later. This spent the most of his long reign on the battlefield. History has also its caprices and

remembered this sovereign as a great strategist, but the truth is that he was beaten up a lot and his
ass was saved either by the English or the Russians. Frederick wanted to be perceived as a
remarkable loving soul and connoisseur of art and science most of all. Even if he had made some
important reforms and surrounded himself with scholars and artists, his intelligence was not
improved substantially and remained far from the Platonic ideal of philosopher king or
philosopher emperor embodied by Marcus Aurelius.
Few people know that Adolf Hitler had an artistic nature. He moved to Vienna in 1907
where he tried to be accepted at the Academy of Fine Arts. However, he did not succeed in
passing the admittance examinations. The collapse of his artistic illusion left its mark on his
rather twisted personality as clearly as possible. This may explain his unfortunate mental
evolution which transformed him into a monster. But enough with the speculations because it is
time his talent of thinker were spoken about. He obviously spent his time on the fringe of the
society which made him observe the true course of life. The quintessence of his ideas is found in
a work called Mein Kampf whose only merit is to have Adolf Hitler as an author.
The failed Munich Putsch took place in November 1923. As a consequence, Hitler was
imprisoned at Lansdberg. He dedicated his time to this monumental work during the
imprisonment. Mein Kampf consists of two volumes published in 1925 respectively 1926.
Biographical and doctrinal elements are interwoven in a prolix manner in its content. In other
words, the National-Socialism principles which stained with blood the world are set out. If the
nightmare which came from those erroneous ideas were not known, one could be tempted to
consider Mein Kampf the fruit of a sick mind.
Nothing is more ridiculous for a person than the tendency to arrogate all the possible
qualities. Therefore, eccentricity goes hand in hand with absolute power. The dictators who do
not flirt with the achievements on the academic realm are rare. The couple Nicolae and Elena
Ceausescu did not remain immune to this syndrome either. Numerous universities of the world
awarded the two the title of Doctor honoris causa in exchange for some economic facilities.
Elena Ceausescu was nearly illiterate and she was called world renowned scholar though, and
became a member of the Academy of Socialist Republic of Romania. Having a doctorate in
chemistry, she started to write books with some help from the real chemists.
Do not think the first president in the history of Romania accepted to be lower. His
servants proclaimed him great thinker of contemporariness without any exaggeration.
Comrade President would write philosophy, politics and history books. Those masterpieces of
the world culture were translated into numerous foreign languages on the expense of the
Romanian state in order that the whole humanity might enjoy the fruits of that superior thinking.
Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi offered raw material to the worldwide news journals by
the means of the war fought against his own people recently. As it is well-known, power is the
strongest narcotic outpacing the cocaine, hashish, or opium addiction by far. Gaddafi took power
in Libya in 1969 and transformed it into a gorgeous republic from a poor monarchy. However, he
quickly got bored of republic and therefore, he announced the birth of masses reign i.e.
Jamahiriya up and loudly in 1977. The one who stubbornly wanted to remain a colonel even if he
had been the supreme master was killed by those he made them adore him in 2011.

Do not believe a personality consisting of a legion of bazaar stuffs as the one of Gaddafi
did not flirt with the intellectual environment. The Green Book saw the light of the printing press
in 1975. The quintessence of the Gaddafi political thinking lies in the 110 pages of the book.
Consequently, the Colonels book totally rejects the liberal democracy and capitalism. In
contrast, the great Libyan thinker suggests a direct and consequently an authentic democracy. All
citizens were going to participate in the countrys rule by means of some popular committees.
Obviously, the Libyans could not be at the height of Gaddafis idealism and destroyed the only
genuine democracy on Earth.
As one can easily imagine the slogans and ambiguity prevail in The Green Book. Even
though, the children had spent a great deal of time studying those drivels. In order that the whole
world might take part in the birth of a new era in the political thinking, Gaddafis book was
translated into English as well. Libya also financed international seminars where the Colonels
aphorisms were studied and he managed to find solutions for the inherent contradictions of the
democratic and Communist regimes. And for the picture to be complete, anybody who had the
pleasure to visit Libya could notice quotations from the only really important book painted on
the walls of the buildings.
The so-called Saparmurat Niyazov wrote the opus modestly entitled Ruhnama (TheBook
of the Soul) to the Turkmens delight closer to our times. This individual who terrorised
Turkmenistan between 1991 and 2006 could not deprive the people of the world from the fruits
of his intelligence. As expected, this book inspired from the Turkmen traditions, history and
culture is a spiritual guide by which the nation should accede on the highest heights of glory.
Naturally, all the people had to read the book. Any school examination was linked to Ruhnama
as well and if one had liked to be employed, it was enough for that person to prove thorough
knowledge of the book. The one who accepted to become President for Life for the sake of his
people let it be understood towards the end of his life the fact that anyone who had read
Ruhnama three times would have had a guaranteed place in heaven. The great favour was
obtained for the readers by negotiations with God Himself.
I believe the information in this chapter does not require any final comment.

Chapter XV
On the Profile of a Successful Dictator

As in the previous chapters I overflowed the superabundance of my theoretical and practical

experience, I will schematically explain in this penultimate chapter what is the profile of a
successful dictator. Thus, a successful dictator:
- has taken off what is commonly called morality, ethic, etc. for a long time.
- is not afraid to do what can be described as abominable or monstrous.
- worships only pure power.

lies anybody except for himself.

relates to concreteness by the filter of the elementary logic. As only the sharp blade of
common sense logic can strengthen and maximise power.
- has no other relatives than those whom the interest put aside.
- trust no one because he knows any individual can and want to take his place.
- does not allow himself to be seduced by his own cult of personality.
- gladly accepts praises, but suspects the ones who praise.
- accepts advice, but does not permit to anyone to think he follows it.
- is infallible as far as he has a well-lubricated repressive apparatus.
- makes himself indispensable and by the prosperity and safety he overflows on his
country.
- controls all not to be controlled by fate.
- speculates any weakness of the human behaviour.
- actions rapidly and mercilessly against his real, possible or imaginary enemies.
- does not press the scene of the public relations with his presence.
- is as perfect as his regime of controlling the masses is.
- is indispensable because he does not leave any alternatives to those he has power
over.
That having been said, anybody is free to remove or add what is considered fit. As for
me, I have done enough when raising this incomplete skeleton called the profile of the
successful dictator.

Chapter XVI
An Urge for an as Efficient Dictatorship as Possible or on the Possibility of Instauration of
a Perfect Dictatorship

Starting from the recurrent bestiality of the human being, certain intellectuals tried to imagine
perfect worlds where evil was abolished and happiness was the only permitted way of life. This
list starts with the Athenian Plato by his reference work Republic. However, the most successful
of the people of letters who approached this genre was Thomas More. He also had the merit of
having given the name of the current in which these exercises of imagination belong to. The title
of his book Utopia (nowhere - Greek) was extended to a whole genre and therefore, such
creations are grouped under the generic name of utopia. The most famous utopias are:
Tommasso Campanella The City of the Sun, Sir Francis Bacon The New Atlantis, Etienne
Cabet Travel and Adventures of Lord William Carisdall in Icaria etc.
The current of dystopias appeared in the 20th century. More precisely, certain renowned
writers imagined (some say they described) total oppressed societies on behalf of a humanitarian

ideal inspiring from some dictators deeds. In fact, the hideous face of totalitarianism was
blamed. Dystopias were drawn up by Aldous Huxley (Brave New World and the essay Brave
New World Revisited), George Orwell (1984 and Animal Farm) and even Panait Istrati through
Confession for Losers. All expressed the disappointments related to societies where the
individuals life was planned on each micro millimetre.
The literary findings of the dystopian arouse the hope that if one can imagine a perfect
world in its happiness, why not a perfect dictatorship could be imagined which a genial supporter
of totalitarianism to put it into practice. The Scientific and Technical Revolution which is being
lived seems to ground such expectations. Thus, there is still hope for the brave and visionary
dictators who will dare to step on the road of installing a perfect dictatorship.

Afterword
This book is a self-defence manual. Any other meanings found for this book are either false or
secondary.
Nowadays, humanity is experiencing a terrible fight between leaders and peoples by
which the former want to get as much power as possible and the latter aim to liberty and
prosperity. The battle for power and control fights using the same means (the differences are
purely quantitative) both in a democratic and a dictatorial regime. The peoples manipulation is
has been practiced since the creation of the state and in order to combat this state of facts I have
started to write this work. I like to believe in my megalomaniac expectations that it will
become as popular as The Red Booklet with quotations from Maos works, except for The
Perfect Dictator Manual will be (possibly) bought and read by the individuals free consent.
I hope the lines between the covers of this booklet will be turned into a useful tool to
protect freedom and will contribute to the non-proliferation of the mass manipulation techniques.
Success is guaranteed if we are armed with the armour offered by The Perfect Dictator Manual
and we can shout like Panait Istrati:Come to another flame!
The one who believes even only for one second the ideas hidden in the previous pages
would somehow come to meet the dictatorship aspirants dreams of glory is in a flagrant error.
This book is and remains a self-defence manual at the hand of anybody who cherishes freedom.