Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Were there any dictators1 who, after being toppled by a revolution or the like, managed to get back to power via what is (or was considered by the norms applied at the time) free and transparent2 elections ?

It's NOT required that the comeback occurs at the first elections held after the toppling.

To make things even easier :

1 - The ruler must be a dictator (no matter how he got there);

2 - (S)he is ousted after a popular revolution (bloody or not, coups NOT included);

3 - A democratic regime, where elections are free, is established;

4 - N presidents took power, where N = 0, 1, 2, ...;

5 - The ex-dictator is allowed to run for presidency and wins elections.


1 : A dictator is a ruler who maintains a total power over a country. It could be a president in a military regime (North Korea), a president in a pseudo-democratic regime (Prerevolutionary Tunisia, where elections results were known beforehand), a monarch (Saudi Arabia) ...

2 : For the sake of this question, every elections where those, who are allowed to vote, can choose the candidate they want, is considered free and transparent. Here, it doesn't matter if the voters were only males, or from a particular race, etc.

share|improve this question
1  
You need to clarify what you include in "dictator" and "more democratic". –  DVK Oct 19 '13 at 14:18
1  
Does the U.S. count as democratic prior to 1964, with a severe educational requirement imposed on voters in many of the Southern states? Does South Africa prior to 1990 count as democratic or not? For how long was Weimar Germany democratic? Please provide a definition of democracy that can actually be used to determine answers to the difficult questions; not just the easy ones. –  Pieter Geerkens Oct 19 '13 at 16:33
1  
@PieterGeerkens - Does the U.S. count as democratic prior to 1964 with a severe educational requirement... - "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government..." - attributed to Jefferson, among others. You can't buy votes so easily, or get elected just because you look good on TV, if the voters are well informed. Educational requirements strengthen democracy. (If we're calling the USA a democracy here, which apparently we are...) –  user2590 Oct 22 '13 at 7:38
1  
This question is become increasingly verbose with qualifiers. I'm voting to close until it can be condensed into something that people might actually stumble across when seeking insight on the internet. –  LateralFractal Oct 23 '13 at 2:02
2  
This is a new site member whom we tied up in knots with numerous suggestions. After the first one or two, it might have been better to edit the question rather than confuse the OP with more critiques. Not a perfect question, but quite a good first effort IMHO. –  Tom Au Oct 26 '13 at 21:28

5 Answers 5

The person that comes to mind is Getulio Vargas of Brazil. He first took power in 1930, in a military-backed coup, after being defeated in a Presidential race, ousting the outgoing President and President-elect. He ruled as a virtual dictator until 1945, at which time he was forced to step down from the Presidency, and allow democratic elections, because his participation in World War II alongside the Allies had undercut the legitimacy of his quasi-Fascist regime, the so-called Estado Novo.

In 1948, after his successor, Gaspar Dutra had wasted the foreign exchange reserves accumulated by the country during World War II, Vargas was re-elected President by democratic means. When right-wing military officers thwarted his statist policies (following the creation of "national" steel, mining, petroleum, and electric companies) he "fell on his sword" by committing suicide/ But he left a suicide note that stymied his enemies, and thereby maintained Brazilian democracy for several more Presidential elections, until 1964.

share|improve this answer

Two examples I can think of: Olusegun Obasanjo and Daniel Ortega.

share|improve this answer
    
I think both of the examples doesn't fit the description I gave in the question since both weren't overthrown. In fact, those two 'dictators' left their posts peacefully after elections. –  ahmed Oct 19 '13 at 20:13
    
@ahmed Is there a third question scope requirement that the revolution that topples the dictator must be bloody? Otherwise I think a peaceful revolution where the dictator left their post qualifies. –  LateralFractal Oct 22 '13 at 0:42
    
Of course, being toppled by a "bloody" is NOT a requirement. Did I miss something here ? –  ahmed Oct 22 '13 at 11:40
    
@ahmed Then I'm upvoting this one as valid examples of dictators that were peacefully overthrown and then elected democratically later (within suitably wide margins of the term 'democratic'). –  LateralFractal Oct 22 '13 at 12:57
1  
In absence of more details regarding the initial removal from power - I'm going to assume they were pressured into it, and hence 'overthrown' as a not completely voluntary act. –  LateralFractal Oct 22 '13 at 13:00

Hugo Chavez in Venezuela violently tried to overthrow Carlos Andrea Perez in 1992 he then came to power through elections in 1999. After he gainned control by overtaking institutions and since 2004 we dont have fair and transparente elections.

share|improve this answer
2  
Interesting example but the sequence of events is reversed; the question is asking for dictator first, then overthrow, elected leader after, all of the same person. –  congusbongus Nov 20 '13 at 3:30

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for, but Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix was Dictator of the Roman Republic in 82-81 BC, and then willingly resigned before running for the election as a Consul in 80 BC.

During his time as Dictator his power was absolute with no expiration and he made numerous constitutional reforms.

share|improve this answer
    
Sulla resigned his post as chancellor and wasn't thrown by a revolution ;) –  ahmed Oct 19 '13 at 19:28
    
I'm in doubt as to how free the 80 BC elections really were. Or, for that, matter, if anyone else except for Sulla and his crony Pius was allowed to run. –  Felix Goldberg Oct 19 '13 at 19:42

I'm back to suggest an answer to my own question

In 2005, Viktor Yanukovych was declared as the winner of the presidential elections but protesters, out crying massive electoral fraud, led to the nullification of the run-off. Viktor Yanukovych lost the second run-off.

In 2010, Viktor Yanukovych won the elections and became (for the second time?) the president of Ukraine.

share|improve this answer
    
Can I, please, know what the downvote is about ? –  ahmed Mar 24 at 12:21
3  
Didn't downvote, but I don't think Yanukovych qualified as a dictator in 2005 (however fraudulent that election was). –  Yannis Rizos Mar 24 at 13:02

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.