Dictators the media doesn't talk about

[Edric O]

When it comes to dictators and tyrants, the mainstream media seems to have favourites - a few national leaders that come up again and again, to the point where you might think they are the only "bad guys" in the world. Iran somehow always manages to be in the news, despite the fact that it's not really any less democratic than most countries in its region. North Korea's government gets pointed out as an example of crazy paranoid totalitarianism all the time, even though the regime in Turkmenistan has done things that make Kim Jong-Il look like a sane and reasonable individual. Burma's junta is mentioned so often that you'd think it's the only military dictatorship in the world.

So here's a topic about the lesser-known dictators, tyrants and despots. Most of them are just as bad as the famous ones - if not worse - but they don't get any press coverage. That might have something to do with the fact that they tend to be pro-Western.

The numbers in parantheses are the age of each leader.

Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo (65) has been the President of Equatorial Guinea since 1979. He deposed and executed the previous dictator, Francisco Macias. He has been re-elected several times in elections widely regarded as fraudulent. He claims to be in contact with God, and he says he kills people because God told him to. Some of his opponents claim that he's a cannibal who eats the testicles of his victims. He is on good terms with the Bush administration.

Hassanal Bolkiah (61) has been the Sultan of Brunei since 1967. He is an absolute monarch and rules over one of the very few countries in the world in which there are no elections at all, not even fake ones (the other such countries are all located in the Arabian peninsula). The Constitution of Brunei proclaims him to be infallible. The country has officially been under martial law since the 1960s, enabling the Sultan to wield "emergency powers". Brunei relies heavily on the oil industry for its revenue and has good relations with foreign companies, although the business environment is somewhat unpredictable because the Sultan has the power to change any law, or any contract, on a whim.

Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow (50) has been the President of Turkmenistan since 2006. Turkmenistan is a one-party state, and the one party has the rather ironic name of "The Democratic Party of Turkmenistan." Berdimuhammedow was selected by the ruling party to replace the previous dictator, President Niyazov, who died suddenly after ruling Turkmenistan with an iron fist since the country declared independence from the Soviet Union. Niyazov was an eccentric autocrat, renaming the months of the year, building a golden statue of himself in the country's capital that turns slowly so as to continuously face the sun during the day, and requiring a compulsory "moral exam" for anyone wanting a driver's licence (the exam, by the way, is designed to test one's knowledge of a book written by Niyazov). Berdimuhammedow hasn't done anything that strange yet, but all dissent is crushed as usual. Turkmenistan is officially a neutral country and has a huge wealth of natural gas.

Isaias Afewerki (62) has been the President of Eritrea since 1993. Eritrea is a one-party state with the distinction of having the absolute lowest press freedom in the world, according to Reporters Without Borders - even lower than totalitarian countries like North Korea.

Idriss D

[exatreide]

Only heard about the Turkmenistan one, because of the eccentricities and the natural gas.

[Caid Ivik]

Long-traditioned monarchies are something different than military juntas and one-party states. Brunei and Qatar are the richer states in their regions. For comparision, Lichtenstein or Vatican are also monarchies and they are quite revered. And also the parties "depending" on fake elections don't deserve prejudices. Comparatively, Berdimuhammedov holds the same grip, but also he seems to show more reason than his predecessor ;)  The type of reign is no moral quality by itself, there was a difference between Nero and Augustus.

[Anathema]

I only heard about the ones from Chad and Eritrea, but I barely know anything about them. Of course the effect that any of them have on the world as a whole is very limited, much less than Iran or North Korea for example.

[Khan]

I only know about the Turkmenistani(?) dictator, but his portrayal is usually as a joke, rather than an oppressive dictator.

[nemafakei]

"Of course the effect that any of them have on the world as a whole is very limited, much less than Iran or North Korea for example"

I question this, NK in particular.

Deby from Chad I know because of a left-wing commentator, nothing to do with the mainstream media.

[Sneakgab]

''Long-traditioned monarchies are something different than military juntas and one-party states. Brunei and Qatar are the richer states in their regions. For comparision, Lichtenstein or Vatican are also monarchies and they are quite revered. And also the parties "depending" on fake elections don't deserve prejudices. Comparatively, Berdimuhammedov holds the same grip, but also he seems to show more reason than his predecessor Wink  The type of reign is no moral quality by itself, there was a difference between Nero and Augustus.''

Better a benign dictator than an elected oppressor. Some might say though that power corrupts all eventually and that this makes most dictators worse than elected leaders. Not sure of the truth in that. Has there never been a benign and/or non-corrupted dictator even amongst the countless kings and queens of the past?

[Mihail]

Found this today on the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7458274.stm

Only at ther very end do they write: "His [President Obiang's] government has been accused of widespread human rights abuses and of ruthlessly suppressing political opposition. Transparency International has put the tiny nation in its top 10 corrupt states."