Men in the past have boasted of being dictators. Some have even pretended to be benevolent autocrats, ruling in the interests of those over whom they exercised absolute control. Recently, Somoza of Nicaragua went down fighting as an unrepentant dictator. But nowadays, hardly any rulers admit that they are dictators. The demand for freedom has become universal, and repression feels the need to camouflage itself.

Thus the Pinochet regime in Chile rigged a referendum to tell the world that the Chilean people voted for a dictatorship! Idi Amin claimed to have had the support of the Ugandan masses whom he was butchering! The world has come to shun racist regimes, military dictatorships and all dictatorial governments. This climate of international opinion offers the first explanation as to why the Forbes Burnham dictatorship prefers to remain disguised.

The Burnham dictatorship presents itself as its own opposite — that is to say, it presents itself as a democracy. This pattern has been determined by the manner in which Burnham achieved political power. Some dictators seize power by violence, as frequently happened in Latin America. Some inherit from a previous strong-man, as in the case of “Baby Doc” Duvalier who succeeded “Papa Doc” Duvalier of Haiti.