… Is a stupid synonym for the word “dictator”.
People use that because dictators are credited for their countries developments and/or stability. Let’s assume they have indeed contributed positively to their countries (even though it is highly debatable at times).
But, I don’t believe any of them deserved to be called “strong”.
Why can’t the so-called strongmen efficiently lead without silencing constructive criticism and non-violent opposing views?
Why can’t the so-called strongmen persuade the majority of the citizens and their oppositions to like them and support their policies?
Why can’t the so-called strongmen punish violent extremists without brutally oppressing innocent people?
If they are really strong, wouldn’t they be able to reach goals despite the recurring resistance? Why do they need authoritarianism to fulfill them?
If anything, their inability to handle disagreements show how weak they are.
We call dictators “strongmen” probably because we still associate “strength” with the willingness to brutalise every person who stand on our ways, even when they are barely blocking them.
We rarely associate “strength” with “resilience”.
I am willing admit that dictators (some, at least) have given bountiful positive contributions to their respective countries and their methods are the easiest way out. It is dishonest for me to say otherwise.
But, I still refuse to call them “strong”.
Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.