the perfect dictator manual

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 Dictator’s 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 Dictator’s 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 I’s 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 I’s 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 I’s 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 I’s 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 I’s 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 Clisthenes’s tyranny before Pericles’s 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 people’s 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 that’s 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

2

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 Lenin’s 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 Romania’s 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 Germany’s 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 führer (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 “Atatürk” 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 army’s 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 individual’s 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 Salazar’s 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 Germany’s 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 People’s 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 country’s 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 Nicaragua’s 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.

4

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 Dictator’s 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 regime’s 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 subject’s 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 Röhm. 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 Sejanus’s 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 Emperor’s disgrace and that led to his execution in 31 AD. Tigellinus was perfect of the Praetorian Guard from 62 to 68 during Emperor Nero’s reign. Nero gained a sad reputation with the help of art like many other dictators. It is about Henryk Sienkiewicz’s 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 Nero’s 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 Nero’s 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 Stalin’s 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 Trujillo’s 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 Mao’s 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 People’s 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

dictator’s 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 Hitler’s 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 d’etat: 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.

5

Curzio Malaparte , Coup d’etat: 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 dictator’s 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 führer, Ernst Röhm, 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 Röhm 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 Stalin’s power. The dictator of Georgian origin planned Kirov’s 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 Trotsky’s 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 everybody’s 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 Caesar’s assassination on the Ides of March in 44 BC while he was in the presence of the senators. The ruler Alexandru Ioan Cuza’s 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 people’s sympathy was on Cuza’s 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 Luther’s 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: Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu, Teohari Georgescu, Ana Pauker, Vasile Luca, Iosif Chişinevschi 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 Râmnicu Sărat to Jilava together with the Nicadors (I. G. Duca’s murderers) and Decemvrs (Mihai Stelescu’s 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 Romania’s 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 Cuza’s 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 Party’s 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 Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu 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. Pătrăşcanu 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 François 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 dictator’s 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 Ceausescu’s 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 dissident’s 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 dissident’s 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 dissident’s leaving the country. The official propaganda definitely should insist on the dictator’s clemency. 6) Mental alienation – means inducting some psychiatric problems which eventually lead to the dissident’s 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 Staël 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 emperor’s 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 citizen’s 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 Ceauşescu 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 clergy’s 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 person’s 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 individual’s 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 dictator’s 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 Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu 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 Dictator’s Family and Friends

Regarding the role which the dictator’s 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 tyrant’s 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 country’s 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 Lopez’s 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 dictator’s 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 dictator’s 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,Iaşi, 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 dictator’s 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 Mao’s 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 “Führer” (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 Marquez’s masterpiece highlight the multitude of the abysses of the “cult of personality” and the narcosis which is installed into the tyrant’s 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 dictator’s 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, Bendición 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 Bokassa’s 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 King’s 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 Dali’s 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 Désiré 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 Lenin’s 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 Oneşti 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 Braşov bore the name of Stalin’s 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 dictator’s 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 dictator’s 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 regime’s 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 Moscow’s 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 USA’s protection. He gave up the power in 2008 when he lost Uncle Sam’s 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 José 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 country’s 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 dictator’s 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 Mureş-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 dictator’s 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 mob’s 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 plebeian’s affection.

In contrast, the ordinary man Louis XVI of France who was concerned about France’s military prestige and the Versailles’s 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 Duke’s” 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 crowd’s 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 history’s 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 citizen’s 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 Nero’s performances and that was the reason why he was sent to quell the riotous Jews. In consequence, theatre and poetry were Nero’s 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 Nero’s 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 Colonel’s 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 country’s rule by means of some popular committees. Obviously, the Libyans could not be at the height of Gaddafi’s 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, Gaddafi’s book was translated into English as well. Libya also financed international seminars where the Colonel’s 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 individual’s 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 Mao’s works, except for The Perfect Dictator Manual will be (possibly) bought and read by the individual’s 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.