# The dictatorship of Vox



## Gryphos (Nov 29, 2014)

In my steampunkesque world the nation of Cabalion is a dictatorship under a dude called Vox. That's not his real name, but that's what people call him. Even guards don't call him 'Sir,' they call him Vox.

Vox was Supreme Admiral of the Sky for Cabalion, but for a few unimportant backstory reasons decided to stage a coup against the monarchy. It was successful, as the monarchy wasn't particularly popular at the time, and he personally executed the king, royal family, and any nobles who supported them. After that he went about undoing all the wrongs the monarchy had caused, funnelling wealth back to the lower classes, etc. And he also established a totalitarian system.

This is probably sounding like your standard dictatorship, a charismatic leader taking the place of a toppled monarchy, and to an extent it is. However, Vox doesn't really have any driving ideology other than "The world would be a much better place if I was in charge." Although, one could say he's very socialist in his beliefs, taxing the rich, free healthcare, strong welfare system, etc. He also takes a very firm stand against 'corrupt morality.' For example, if a rich person is found to be scheming to avoid paying taxes, he'll order that person's execution, stating that a person so morally corrupt and greedy as to avoid giving back to society doesn't deserve to live.

The thing is, also, Vox is essentially a good person. He resists corruption, doesn't exploit the lower classes and even endeavours to aid them at every turn, and thus is extremely popular with them. The only people, I suppose, who wouldn't be fond of him would be the rich. Because, unlike in communism, the rich classes would still definitely exist, and in fact Vox, being a 'good person,' would make sure that their ability to strive for self-worth wouldn't be hindered, so long as they stayed clean. It's just that they would always be under the watchful eye of Vox, who wouldn't hesitate to kill them if they did anything 'morally corrupt.' He also advocates freedom of speech, and allows people to disagree with him, so long as they don't act against him.

So that's Vox's benevolent dictatorship. His word is law, and that's his ideology. He wants to be king of the world, because he only trusts himself to make the world a better place.

But I haven't really considered the details of his rule. How does he maintain power? What kind of systems would he have to put in place? Dictatorships are always at risk of falling, so how would Vox make his last?


----------



## Hainted (Nov 29, 2014)

Sounds like Discworld's Patrician. He believes in one man/one vote and since he's one man he'll cast the one vote so no one else has to worry about making decisions. He basically stays in power by maintaining a balance of problems versus solutions, playing powerful factions off each other, and reminding people how awful things were before he took over. He also lets people speak out against him(to a point). I mean as long as the trains run on time(so to speak) and people aren't disappearing mysteriously after speaking their minds it's really hard to rouse a rebellion against a dictator.


----------



## DeathtoTrite (Nov 29, 2014)

How does he maintain power...

That's kind of tricky. A lot of people start out like this, then get worse as resistance movements gain traction (thanks to the dictators initial benevolence). What about monarchists? It sounds like he has made incredible changes, if he changed the government from a monarchy to a socialist state. 

If he is determined to remain benevolent, then he could do a few things. Strict laws- curfews, curtailing assembly, banning weapons, etc. would be one way. Retain close ties to the military, making sure to pay them well for there services. 

Historically, the "I am in charge because I am the best for you" makes him sound a lot like enlightened despots. Frederick the Great and Napoleon would be great examples. They expected absolute obedience, but they genuinely believed they were the best thing for their countries.


----------



## spectre (Dec 8, 2014)

The idea of a benevolent dictator is kind of new to me, mostly because I put despots and dictators on different wavelengths merely given their place in history and the rudimentary nature of people as such rulers developed from politics during their time. Your story sounds very politically charged, so it's good to ask the questions you're posing obviously. There is a two way street that will effect your storyline though, is Vox's rule motivating the citizenry to act in such a way, or is this a story of Vox's rule itself? You have to have decided on that because of the explosive results it has on the weigh in of a major story line from the political perspective. I could also have it wrong and this is just a part of the story, but it doesn't sound that way. 

Political intrigue requires more than just policy however, there have to be structures in place to undergo change and to use for imposing change. A flux; and iron fisted rule is bound to be problematic if at the same time this benevolence is well received, because people don't speak when they are content. So where will the story go?

You've already said that he believes in strong welfare, and freedom of speech; etc. which could put your story on the podium of a success story, meaning it isn't about how conflict grew, it's about the success that came after. Or it's about the anarchic punk. There is a sort of flavor of Survival Games here though, where the Capitol for instance is totally content, and the rest of the districts ruled by fear and loathing, somewhere along the lines if you don't want to go with in house squabbles or patrons of the nation ideas you would have to introduce a faction against the ruler. 

One thing I can say is that in dictatorships, the modern world always boils them down to regimes. Simply because they are not democratic true, but the cultural perspectives within them are very unique and they have their own problems especially when there is some freedom of speech. People start to argue.

The absence of Vox's ideology though would most likely be his downfall because of the competitive nature of people. A lot of populations further look for a purpose. Organizations spring up to do all sort of worldly errands which rely on politicians to give them leeway and so the benevolence of rule if Vox completely state controls everything is going to breed (naturally to be a realist) subcultures which can find a way to compete with each other even if it's gambling (Mahjong caused major issues in China with corruption and gang rivalry for instance). 

I think that the idea of a benevolent dictatorship ultimately means you would have to look to outside sources for conflict, internally whatever policy you make is loved if this is in fact a benevolent dictatorship.


----------



## Mikelo (Dec 8, 2014)

Looks good. Just a few questions I would ask of Vox:

1. How did you establish--and how do you hope to maintain--your legitimacy? Is there anything other than performance that makes the general population (and other nations) accept that you have the right to rule? Can you sell some sort of ideology to the masses that would legitimize your rule?

2. How does you keep the military happy? (Leaders who lose the support of the military don't stay leaders for long. But as an ex-admiral, you can probably cover this one easily.)

3. How do you keep the merchants happy? (You need them to remain economically stable, right?)

4. What happens when you die? How will you choose a successor? Is there a plan for that?

Good luck with the dictatorship . . . .


----------



## Gryphos (Dec 8, 2014)

> I think that the idea of a benevolent dictatorship ultimately means you would have to look to outside sources for conflict, internally whatever policy you make is loved if this is in fact a benevolent dictatorship.



This was really always my intent. At the time of the story Vox is preparing to wage war to basically take over the world, so there's plenty of external conflict for Cabalion.

As to his role in the story, he's definitely a very prominent character, and the catalyst for the entire plot, but the story isn't really about him. The story isn't even that political, it just forms the backdrop for the events that take place. But nonetheless the details of Cabalion will no doubt be brought up at some point.


----------



## Gryphos (Dec 8, 2014)

Mikelo said:


> Looks good. Just a few questions I would ask of Vox:
> 
> 1. How did you establish--and how do you hope to maintain--your legitimacy? Is there anything other than performance that makes the general population (and other nations) accept that you have the right to rule? Can you sell some sort of ideology to the masses that would legitimize your rule?
> 
> ...



Interesting questions to consider.

1) Vox didn't really need to prove his ability to anyone when he took power other than the select group who helped him carry out the coup against the monarchy. After that was done I imagine he would have immediately sought to gain the population's support through denouncing the monarchy and vowing to fight for the common man (the monarchy wasn't very popular in Cabalion). The true loyalty of the people would be gained over time through Vox backing up his original manifesto and actually helping the common man. He would say, I suppose, that his ideology would be some variety of Socialism, "Voxism" perhaps.

2) Being ex-Supreme Admiral of the Sky, Vox would have no problem keeping the military on his side. He would also try to grow the military as quickly as possible, readying for war.

3) Keeping the businessmen happy I imagine is what Vox might struggle at. He would want to put liberal amounts of State regulations in place so as to protect the worker, which some factory owners may not be too happy about. However, if they attempted ways to circumvent these regulations, and were found out, Vox would have them executed for 'moral corruption,' and instate a 'morally uncorrupt' person to take their place running the business. Also, I imagine a large portion of Cabalion's industry would be State-run to avoid 'moral corruption'.

4) Now this is where Vox's policy fails. In fact this is one thing I was planning on bringing up in the story, how Vox hasn't taken into account what happens when he dies. So in actuality Vox has no answer to this, as he's never given it any thought. Perhaps that would be Cabalion's eventual downfall.


----------



## Nagash (Dec 8, 2014)

You mentioned Vox's regime was totalitarian - however, by the looks of it, it only seems to be a dictatorial regime, albeit kinda loose on the whole "executing people" thing. You also pointed out that Vox lacked an institutionalized ideology or doctrine, which was always a key element of totalitarianism. The thing is, a dictatorial regime takes away - at least some of - your freedom, rights, what have you, and is somewhat present in your private life (constant surveillance, censorship, etc), while a totalitarian regime infiltrates the very mind of individuals. Looking back at Stalinism, Nazism, the Khmer or pretty much any kind of "ism" in the many dystopian novels of the 20th century, what first strikes the reader, is how people of all aged are bullied into committing to an idea, concept, to the point of inhuman brainwash. A totalitarian regime is therefore "total" because it is ever-present, in all layers of society, public and private. Advocates of such a regime - who, granted, I'm pretty sure all passed away some time ago or await trial behind bars at this point in history - would be promoters of ideas such as the "remolding" of man (with communism), the creation of a "purified" human race (social Darwinism/Nazism), or simply "good citizens" such as described in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's concept of Democracy.

Totalitarianism is often a pretty good way to safeguard power, since hardcore propaganda and well conducted manipulation eventually convince people you're the supreme guide and that they're working to build a greater futur. It should also be mentioned that historical Totalitarianisms were systematically fueled by warmongering (the economy mostly stood upon war's industry), and would tire out over long periods of indolence. Moreover, most Totalitarianism slaughtered absurd amounts of people, simply to keep everyone in line - Stalinism and the Khmer regime are sad examples of such horrid truth. Nazism did too, of course, but in order to serve its ideological purpose, while USSR's soviet regime from 1928 to 1953 was downright insane. After Stalin's death, USSR did change drastically - more than liberal and American medias would have liked for you to believe back in the days - into a merely authoritarian regime.

Point being, Totalitarianism are often, if not always, the monstrous creation of idealists and power-hungry brutes, and are therefore the most barbaric form of regime, as well as the most insidious. Well-meaning, and most of all, good-hearted persons might become misguided dictators for "the sake of their people". It takes madness however, and quite a bit of monstrosity to become a totalitarian leader.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Gryphos (Dec 9, 2014)

I suppose then that Vox's government shouldn't be considered totalitarian exactly. Vox has no interest in invading every aspect of people's lives, and he's not narcissistic enough to want to indoctrinate people into essentially worshipping him as several real-world dictators have done. Yes, I imagine there would be a fair amount of statues and posters of him littered around, but people wouldn't call him 'glorious leader' or say 'hale Vox' as a greeting.


----------



## Aludo (Dec 26, 2014)

Much often the simple fact of being loved makes some leader untouched
That's how Stalin and mao-tse tung for example kept their power, they were so loved by the people that no one dared to oppose him, and who opposed, was quickly detained, you know, if someone opposed him, there was so much love from people that it wouldn't take much to someone oppose who opposed the great leader
Was also common from leaders to use people trust to kill someone, you know, accusing him to be a traitor who made a plot to kill the leader/someone next, then, obviously, the leader killed him
Something interesting that mao tse-tung did was, allow everyone from the communist party and any intellectual/ who wanted to write a complaint about something the government is doing wrong, you know claiming "let's allow everyone write what the government should improve to make this a better state". After that. He killed all of them, saying that "It was a plan to reveal all the traitors in our govern". That's an easy way to take out the opposition
Talking about china and opposition, Deng xiao ping was Mao's political rival, while mao defended more the peasants and agriculture in general, deng had a more urban and intelectual idea of administration, however mao didn't fought him because Deng was so supported and loved by the society (specially from the higher classes) that mao didn't dared to oppose/kill him, obviously den didn't oppose mao either... 
Another case is if some great representative had a intim friendship with the leader for real, there was no conflict


----------



## Lucas (Dec 26, 2014)

Is he supposed to be a villain. I don't know, but he seems pretty sympathetic 

Given that, totalitarian dictatorships are only interesting settings when the protagonists are rebels trying to overthrow the dictator. Failing, half-assed dictatorships are funnier.

This is the perfect example of totalitarianism, or:

"_Deus is the eternal leader of the Nuncirists. His full name is Great Executive of the Nuncirist Party, Leader of All Nuncirists, Infinite and Immortal, Regent of Humanity, Icon of Progress and Emperor of Solentia Eternal, Glory of our Race and Guidance of our Nation, His Imperial Majesty the Deus. This title is only ever recited as a rare formality, although all Nuncirists are expected to know it. Interestingly this is also the only time he is referred to as the Deus. Deus is a mysterious figure, his real name is unknown and he is rarely - if ever - seen in person except on TeleScreens. His residence is the Imperial Palace in Solendus._"

That *is* totalitarianism.


----------



## Nimue (Dec 26, 2014)

The part about this which really makes me wonder is, how does he judge "immoral" behavior?  How can he know that absolutely?  Does he only execute the rich?  Who counts as rich, then?  There would be some gray area in which his ideals aren't objectively "just".  And that would be a range in which it would be easy to see a sliding standard--perhaps if wealth is redistributed as he intends, the hammer would fall harder and harder on the middle-class.

Absolute power corrupts etc etc.  You'd have to work really hard to convince me that wouldn't happen here.


----------



## Gryphos (Dec 26, 2014)

> Is he supposed to be a villain. I don't know, but he seems pretty sympathetic



It's complicated. Technically he is the villain (or at least one of the villains) of the story, but the protagonist doesn't take any personal opposition to him. Not to get into details, but the protagonist is merely trying to stop Vox from assassinating almost every other major political leader in the world.



> The part about this which really makes me wonder is, how does he judge "immoral" behavior? How can he know that absolutely?



Well that's the question isn't it? Vox judges moral corruption based off of his own beliefs. He doesn't have a set moral code of his own other than "being a decent human being", and judges others based on how 'decent' a human being they are. Are they greedy? Are they sadistic? Are they generally malevolent, be that in the form of racism or xenophobia? So basically Vox decides what immoral behaviour is, and what the punishments for such behaviour should be.



> Absolute power corrupts etc etc. You'd have to work really hard to convince me that wouldn't happen here.



I'm actually planning on having a scene in which Vox is challenged using the 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' line. To that what he'd likely say would be something along the lines of "absolute power corrupts the corruptible". And that's basically the entire approach I'm taking to his character: What if there was a person whom absolute power couldn't corrupt?


----------



## cupiscent (Dec 26, 2014)

I have no real contribution to the discussion point, but every time I see this thread title go past on the activity feed, my first thought is that you're talking about Vox Day. :/


----------



## Lucas (Dec 28, 2014)

Study Lenin and de Robespierre. They were similar "incorruptible" leaders.


----------



## Lucas (Dec 28, 2014)

IMHO, Vox should have a right-hand man (or woman) who is far more corrupt, doing the dictator's dirty work and aims at becoming the new dictator.


----------



## Gryphos (Dec 28, 2014)

Lucas said:


> IMHO, Vox should have a right-hand man (or woman) who is far more corrupt, doing the dictator's dirty work and aims at becoming the new dictator.



That's an oddly specific idea. Why so?


----------



## Lucas (Dec 28, 2014)

Creates an internal dynamic within the regime. In most authoritarian states, the dictator is forced to balance the interests of various social classes against one another, but also to balance their key followers against one another. Especially as Vox cannot rely on dynastic legitimacy and has established his state.

Also, the immediate key minions of dictators tend to dislike one another and be afraid that their colleagues are plotting against them.


----------



## Gryphos (Dec 28, 2014)

I see. A problem, however, is that Vox would never allow any morally corrupt person to have any governmental authority in the first place, and definitely wouldn't want any such person serving him personally. He'd be the type to only associate himself with people he knows personally to be good people, and would only ever give people important positions if they 'passed the test'. Obviously he wouldn't be able to personally interview every single person coming to a position of power, but I can certainly imagine him having a stringent system of personality monitoring. If a hint of moral corruption showed itself, a further investigation would be carried out (Vox probably has a veritable army of psychologists at hand) and if moral corruption was found, that person's authority would be stripped. In fact, they might even have to go through a kind of rehabilitation program to make them a good person. Thus, if any conflict arose between two influential people, Vox would decide which party was in the right, and 'convince' the other that that is so.


----------



## Lucas (Dec 28, 2014)

That would make his followers even more keen on finding corruption amongst themselves, to get rid of competitors, no matter if they are old comrades. At least one of them would primarily focus on getting rid of the others by having them accused of corruption.


----------



## Gryphos (Dec 28, 2014)

> That would make his followers even more keen on finding corruption amongst themselves, to get rid of competitors, no matter if they are old comrades. At least one of them would primarily focus on getting rid of the others by having them accused of corruption.



And in doing so, those people would be doing a morally corrupt action. I doubt it would be long before they themselves were discovered to be morally corrupt, and dealt with accordingly. Don't get me wrong, I can certainly imagine this happening – there would indeed be those who would try to get their fellows accused, but how long would those sorts of people be able to survive in Vox's system?


----------



## evanator66 (Dec 28, 2014)

I'm guessing the average term length is about 6 to 9 months.


----------



## Lucas (Dec 29, 2014)

Gryphos said:


> And in doing so, those people would be doing a morally corrupt action. I doubt it would be long before they themselves were discovered to be morally corrupt, and dealt with accordingly. Don't get me wrong, I can certainly imagine this happening – there would indeed be those who would try to get their fellows accused, but how long would those sorts of people be able to survive in Vox's system?



That is almost Pythonesque. Especially as there probably *are* those members of Vox's camarilla who are corrupt or treasonous (even for idealistic reasons, like believing that Vox is going too far), and how should he then be able to expose them, if those who can do the exposing are afraid to speak out?

Anyway, I believe de Robespierre is the closest analogue.

Maximilien de Robespierre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Gryphos (Dec 31, 2014)

> That is almost Pythonesque. Especially as there probably are those members of Vox's camarilla who are corrupt or treasonous (even for idealistic reasons, like believing that Vox is going too far), and how should he then be able to expose them, if those who can do the exposing are afraid to speak out?



Good point there. I suppose there would be a definite possibility of Vox's camarilla containing at least one person who isn't entirely supportive of him. But that person would have to be one hell of a deceiver to gain Vox's trust and not be revealed to be morally corrupt by Vox's army of psychoanalysts (as such figures would likely be required to go through regular psychological examinations). If that person did exist, and managed to gain a position of power, they would be forever tip-toeing around, worrying about Vox's spies (because of course Vox would have all political figures monitored). For people in a position of authority, peer accusation wouldn't really be necessary. Vox is a smart guy – he wouldn't punish someone for moral corruption based purely on accusation. I think he'd probably put some extra spy/psychoanalyst monitoring on the accused party and see if any moral corruption was discovered.



> Anyway, I believe de Robespierre is the closest analogue.



Fascinating stuff. I can definitely see a lot of similarities between him and Vox.


----------

