Home
One example of this would be an autocracy. That's where you have rule by a single person with unlimited authority. Now, this authority might be legitimate like in the case of Russia under the Czar Nicholas II. He was the czar, the Russian people recognized him as such, but he was the single person that essentially held all governmental power and had unlimited authority which made him an autocrat. He was essentially unchecked by the will of the people.
Another example of this might be an absolute monarchy. This is ruled by a single person who usually inherits the leadership role for life, like a king. The most well-known example of absolute monarchy would be France under Louis XIV, who was known as the Sun King. He used his absolute power to build France into a great nation and later on even to take it to some disastrous wars and those kinds of things, but Louis XIV really had absolute power. He didn't have to confer with the nobility or any other group to make the decisions he needed to make or carry out the policies that he wanted to carry out. So, he's another interesting example of an absolute monarch.
A third example of rule by one is dictatorship. This is rule by a single person who may not have been selected by the people and may not have had any constitutional responsibilities to the people. Two of the biggest examples of this in history would be Germany under Adolf Hitler or Iraq, more recently, under Saddam Hussein. They were both men who came to power not necessarily on the will of the people and then certainly ruled in a way that did not have any constitutional responsibility to them. They were able to carry out policies that they believed were in the best interest of the nation but usually more dedicated to enriching their power and their control and not so worried about the everyday lives of the people.
Another example of this is tyranny and some of this kind of mix. You might hear about tyranny and you think, "Well, Hitler was something of a tyrant," and you would be right, technically, but the problems are all things that come out of this idea of rule by one and what can happen when you invest too much power in one person. In the case of tyranny, you have rule by a single person who governs really just in their own interest and often represses the people in the process of doing so. Certainly, Hitler and Hussein did some of that, but a really great example of tyranny is Chile under Augusto Pinochet, a 20th century dictator of Chile that ran things like a real tyrant. Truly ran things just for his own interest. Chile was being ran so he could enrich himself and live a more lavish lifestyle, and often his policies repressed the people and really infringed on their liberty.
So it's important to note that these categories really overlap. Czar Nicholas started out as an absolute monarchy and became more of an autocrat. We've talked about the ways Hitler came to power under constitutional circumstances, but quickly rejected the constitution as he became a dictator and a tyrant.
The problems with government ruled by one person is that often they do have unlimited authority, and they won't be responsive to the will of the people. I think you've seen all of that in the examples that we've just shown. When you have an elected government that's not one of these rule by one situations, that elected government has to be more responsible to the people.
So these rulers in these rule by one situations often become susceptible to violent overthrow. People don't feel like they have any other sort of option in dealing with the government, so when these dictators or tyrants become too powerful, the people ultimately can't change things at the ballot box. So they're forced to revolt instead. That tension between revolution and the leader often leads to even more repressive tactics, so these people who have all this government power often become more repressive. They use the secret police. They use torture. They imprison their enemies. All of these kinds of things are very characteristic of these rule by one situations.
Now, assuming it hasn't gone down this negative path, there are some advantages to rule by one. One person in charge can act quickly and decisively. They don't have to wait for other branches or other groups to agree on a course of action. If it's rule by one and the person has certainly the best interest of the people at heart and they can be more decisive, you can have a good situation. Unfortunately, history most often shows us that when you have rule by one, that power proves to be corruptive and people tend to rule on their own self-interest, often at the expense of the people.