[Mnemosyne]

Something I'm concerned about, Raynor, is how you're defining "dictatorship." The original dictator was a person selected by the Roman republic to have absolute power in times of emergency--but he had to give it up after a year. The fact is that there have been plenty of absolutist rulers in the real world who don't fit with your criteria.

For example if we want to look at many of the Roman emperors--particularly those in the earlier era--we had rulers who understood that if they kept the People busy (i.e., bread and circuses) they weren't going to rise up. Even though these people had few basic rights, and if they had a vote it was basically bought and sold, they weren't "oppressed" in the sense that you're suggesting. They were still kept from pursuing political rights, but by different means than the ones that you suggest.

So these absolutists might count as "exploiting the lure of instant satisfaction", but there wasn't really any fearmongering to start wars--at least during the Pax Romana. (Wars along the borders weren't because of fears... it was because that was what people did!)

The other brilliant thing that the early Romans did was have really, really good PR by pretending they still had the old system of rights that existed in the Republic, because they could compare against "Eastern Despots." But oftentimes the Eastern Despots did the exact same thing the Romans did.

The point is that, from a historical perspective, the ideas of universal democracy, etc., have been more blips in time than any sort of widespread movement, and it wasn't really until the self-titled Enlightenment that the idea of Universal Rights got bandied around a lot, and that absolute monarchy started to get a bad name.

And just to stir the pot a little more... how much do we really know about Elessar's style of ruling in the restored kingdom? We know that he let the Shire be basically autonomous, and that he reinstated a state religion, but that's about it. He was a monarch with central authority, which he had the right to use even if he may not have used it all the time. How much of an absolutist was he, and what policies of his really contradicted those of these dictators that you're criticizing so much?

I have to run--but I'd really like to see a more specific definition of what you mean by "dictator." 20th century dictatorship and 18th century absolutism, and even the ancient absolutism of the Egyptians are all very, very different things.