I read that article many years ago, when Brechtel was flogging it. I thought that it needed to start most sentences with the words, "In my opinion…"
Who decided what the definitions of a dictatorship are?
For example, do we really think that Hitler, who apparently was quite popular for much of his time in power, was "not seen as legitimate" by all those cheering crowds?
And most dictatorships do indeed "safeguard the freedom of their citizens"… except those who are disobedient or suspected of disloyalty, of course. You're always free to agree with the regime and praise it. Just don't criticize it. Which is exactly how Napoleon behaved, as did all autocrats at the time. (I can't find the reference now, but somebody on TMP pointed out – on one of the many, many occasions when this came up in the past – that there isn't a single example of Napoleon's legislature ever voting "No" against any measure he put before them.)
And as for this "majority of its citizens" thing… If memory serves, Napoleon's 1804 plebiscite got something like 99.9% approval, with only 3.5 million voters showing up, about 10% of the population. I think Saddam Hussein had a better voter turnout and won by a smaller margin. Either Napoleon really was the most uber-popular godlike wunderkind ever to stand for election, or that vote was… well, like the elections of most dictators.
So, I call BS on the creation of criteria designed to support an opinion that the author already held.
Say, does anybody know what that loud thudding noise is, coming from the Dawghouse? It sounds like somebody shouting MMMPH!! NMMPH!!
