Talk:Right-wing dictatorship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Turkmenistan & military juntas in Africa

Turkmenistans Democratic Party is a nationalist and conservative party that opposes LGBT rights and the country has slave labour. There are also several military juntas in Africa that could be added. I also feel countries like Uganda, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran should be added as well as the monarchys in the middle east. I also noticed there weren't any lists for South American country even though several countries in South America have been dictatorships, notably Military Brazil, Chile under Pinochet, Peru under Fujimori, Paraguay under Stroessner as examples I also feel The Confederate States of America under the Democratic Party could be added too. TYMR (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TYMR: thanks for pointing this out. It is especially surprising that the article still lacks South America from the lists, despite right-wing dictatorships being some of the most prominent on this continent, under sponsorship of Operation Condor. Would you be able and up to adding these entries to the list? Thank you! –Vipz (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would but I'm afraid I don't know how to properly edit the page and I don't want to mess it up TYMR (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TYMR: Wikipedia:Can't break it ;) –Vipz (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I added two of them but I didn't do it properly, can someone fix it please? TYMR (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
reliable sources to back up the claims inserted into the article. Do you have sources that call Turkmenistan under Democratic Party of Turkmenistan / Serdar Berdimuhamedow or Confederate States of America under Democratic Party / Jefferson Davis right-wing dictatorships? You should post them here if so. Thanks! –Vipz (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Sources for the Confederate States. https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/ku-klux-klan, https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/confederate-states-of-america, https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/event/the-american-civil-war-as-a-conservative-revolution, https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm
None of these sources support inclusion; none describe the Confederate States as a right-wing dictatorship. - Rotary Engine talk 03:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Democratic Party of Turkmenistan: https://www.indianarrative.com/opinion-news/after-afghanistan-turkmenistans-creeping-shift-to-conservative-islam-is-alarming-36272.html, https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/01/30/turkmenistan-at-twenty-five-high-price-of-authoritarianism-pub-67839, https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studies/turkmenistan/ TYMR (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
messed the article up again, my mistake. I think it would be better if someone else did this unless someone gives me some tips on how to edit it properly TYMR (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, was wondering why Empire of Japan was removed. It was a fascist state that was apart of the Axis powers and one of the most infamous right wing dictatorships in history. TYMR (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a fascist state ... and one of the most infamous right wing dictatorships in history. Sources? It certainly was part of the Axis powers, but it's not broadly considered to have been fascist or a dictatorship. - Rotary Engine talk 03:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Afghanistan is a totalitarian state that opposes LGBT and women's rights. The Taliban is even listed as far-right on wikipedia TYMR (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Afghanistan should definitely be included on this list because it is arguably the most obvious example of a right-wing dictatorship of the 21st century TYMR (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the referenced sources described Afghanistan as a right-wing dictatorship. It might be so, but to be included it needs to be referenced with sources which actually support that. - Rotary Engine talk 03:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll do that TYMR (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-collapse-of-afghanistan/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/03/far-right-america-taliban/ https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/afghanistan https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/18/afghanistan-taliban-deprive-women-livelihoods-identity https://www.politico.eu/article/far-right-taliban-afghanistan-social-media-facebook-twitter/let me know if any of this is okay. I will wait for approval before adding it back TYMR (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at these one by one:

Journal of Democracy. Uncertain as to the

reliability
of the source; explicitly not peer reviewed. But that may be moot, because the text doesn't describe Afghanistan as a dictatorship. This source doesn't support inclusion.

Washington Post. Paywalled. What exact text from this source supports inclusion?

Human Rights Watch #1. Advocacy organisation, so best attributed in-text. But the text doesn't describe Afghanistan as a dictatorship. This source doesn't support inclusion.

Human Rights Watch #2. As above. This source doesn't support inclusion.

Politico EU. Afghanistan & Taliban are not the primary focus of this source. But that may be moot, because the text doesn't describe Afghanistan as a dictatorship. This source doesn't support inclusion.

This article is

Authoritarian regimes, nor Right-wing totalitarian regimes. To be included we need sources which describe the regime as both right-wing and a dictatorship. Sources don't seem to describe Afghanistan under the Taliban as the latter. - Rotary Engine talk 18:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-the-unhappiest-nation-under-the-dictatorship-of-taliban-says-report-515006 https://www.eurotopics.net/en/305917/afghanistan-two-years-after-the-taliban-takeover https://www.britannica.com/topic/Taliban Hibatullah Akhundzada https://www.the-sun.com/news/3483069/taliban-leader-mawlawi-hibatullah-akhundzada-who-afghanistan/ TYMR (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at these one by one:

WIONews. Video doesn't play. "About Us" does not inspire confidence that this is a

reliable source
. Does the source describe Afghanistan as a dictatorship?

Eurotopics. News aggregator; we would prefer to use the original sources. The only one which mentions "dictatorship" is La Repubblica, which attributes it to Alberto Cairo, Red Cross envoy to Afghanistan. This source doesn't support inclusion.

Britannica. Does not describe Afghanistan as a dictatorship. This source doesn't support inclusion.

The Sun. Deprecated source; per

WP:RSP
.

The sources need to be

reliable and describe Afghanistan under the Taliban as both right-wing and a dictatorship? Is this unclear? - Rotary Engine talk 19:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/central_south_asia/omar-sadr-afghanistan-taliban-rule-totalitarianism-human-rights-news-2441/ I apologize if I have not been helpful. This article describes it as a dictatorship but also points the extremism, Islamism, racism, Anti-LGBT sentiment and misogony under the regime. I'll try to look a bit more but if it still does not meet the standards you can revert it and I won't do anymore edits TYMR (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting source. Looking at the website, "Fair Observer" takes open submissions for articles; similar in some ways to
WP:DUE concerns. - Rotary Engine talk 05:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Africa

African right-wing dictatorships should be included too. They include Rwanda under Habyarimana, Uganda, Sudan, Chad, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Apartheid South Africa, Zaire (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Togo under Eyadéma, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon. Also notably the several military juntas in Africa TYMR (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have
predominant view? For some nations in that list, neither condition seems likely. - Rotary Engine talk 03:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
verify the content. - Rotary Engine talk 13:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologize for my editing and I will make no more edits on this page. I do personally feel that there are many dictatorships in Africa that could be called Right-Wing such as Malawi under Hastings Banda, Togo under Faure Gnassingbé and his son, Rwanda under Juvénal Habyarimana, Uganda under Yoweri Museveni, Zaire, Guinea under Lansana Conté, Egypt under Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Sudan under Omar al-Bashir, The Gambia under Yahya Jammeh, Chad under Hissène Habré are the ones I feel qualify. TYMR (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TYMR (talk • contribs)
TYMR, it's not about personal feeling. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my wording, I didn't mean it that literally when I said "personal opinion." But Africa has been through several repressive dictatorships of the Right and Left. Some that are very obviously Right-Wing are Zaire, Rwanda under Habyarimann and Togo under Gnassingbé and the regime under his son. These including the ones I mentioned above, were repressive dictatorships and had very Right-Wing policies which include strong anti-communist views and ethnic supremacy. Zaire has been labelled tropical fascist and its system is similiar to the third-position regimes in Europe due to strong anti-communist and anti-capitalist stances claiming to be beyond left and right. The dictatorship of Rwanda had strong anti-communist stances and also dehumanized and caused genocide against the tutsi people. Togo's regime had very strong anti-communist stances and pro western stances as well. The nations I mention have just as much of a reason to be on here as the other regimes on the list and I don't think that we should be keeping the entire continent of Africa off when there are several regimes throughout history and some today that fit the label.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/united-states-and-rightwing-dictatorships-19651989/4798163AF365CE6B2B1E202EBC608922 https://gsp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/gs13_-_development_ideology_the_peasantry_and_genocoide_rwanda_represented_in_habyarimanas_speeches.pdf https://adst.org/2015/03/the-reign-of-the-snake-the-seedy-tenure-of-togos-president-eyadema/ https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/world/090897obit-mobutu.html?module=inline https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdf/10.3366/swc.2015.0107 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TYMR (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • TYMR, I'm trying to look through these links, which lack organization and explanation. The first is to a book that will probably be very helpful, but you're not pointing at anything in specific and I don't have access to it. The first chapter is about Mobutu--whether that man was truly a dictator or just an autocratic ruler of a kleptocracy remains to be seen, and whether he was right-wing in the regular sense of the word is also questionable. The second link is to a student paper (as note 3 indicates) which hasn't undergone peer review; Habyarimana was a dictator, sure, but whether he was "right-wing" is another matter. His regime with that glorification of the peasantry is compared to that of Hitler, but also to that of Pol Pot (with the difference, the author points out, that Habyarimana didn't have to cleanse the cities of unwanted people because the majority of the people lived in the country). So what I see so far is not really helpful here; I can't search the Verwimp paper but I don't think it says "right-wing" anywhere. It makes one wonder whether the term "right-wing" really applies very well globally. The ADST paper on Togo has similar issues, including not mentioning "right-wing"--in addition it is strangely unorganized and wavers between personal reflection and general observation, but there is no author's name, and it pretty obviously is not a peer-reviewed academic publication. I repeat what I said before: these qualifications cannot be the result of your own opinion or research. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to look some more. But if I may ask, its been difficult for me to find articles that outright say "this dictatorship was Right-Wing" but I have found many that bring up that they were infact a dictatorship and that they were conservative or that they were anti-communist, they banned left-wing parties or executed leftist politicians etc. Policies that are generally Right-Wing. The ADST article says "At the height of Togo’s fame was when a lot of other countries in Africa were moving towards the left and moving towards socialism and communism" which implys Togo was at a rightist direction. I also wanted to mention the articles on the dictatorships in questions through wikipedia leadership or ruling party are listed as Right-Wing. I was looking through the Duvalier Dynasty of Haitis links and did not see a reference to them being listed as Right-Wing but they were indeed Right-Wing and has every right to be on the page. The book I linked on Zaire is the same one used on the wikipedia page for Zaire's ruling party when it says "Historians consider the regime Right-Wing." Rwandas former ruling party is labelled as conservative, Far-Right and anti-communist on its wikipedia page. The Togo and Rwanda dictatorships I mentioned both appear on the wikipedia article Far-Right politics in the Africa section. Should all these be removed as well? Does the study indeed need to include the term "Right-Wing" even if the term is not used but describes policies that are clearly Right-Wing? TYMR (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus?

Considering Lukashenko a right-wing dictator is absurd, since he has been a continuator of the Soviet legacy (to a much greater extent than Putin). Not only are there left-wing parties in his coalition, but if we considered Putin's United Russia party to be center-right, it would be to the left of Putin's party, that is, he would be a center-left dictator.

On the other hand, he would not be totalitarian, only authoritarian. 186.32.217.46 (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point to portray Lukashenko as left-wing you have to twist and devoid the political spectrum of any meaning.
Soviet nostalgia, and opportunism, dressed in Soviet aesthetics; these are not left-wing politics. –Vipz (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Vipz You could also add social policies, collective farms, state subsidies, weight of the state in the economy, etc. ComradeHektor (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Death penalty in Belarus, LGBT rights in Belarus, Women in Belarus#Role in society, List of political parties in Belarus#Deregistered parties, "socialism is when the government does stuff". Pretty sure those in power who are cozy allying with right-wingers and conservative policies are the real leftists, while regular people who oppose this system (from an actual left-wing perspective), for which they are being repressed, are not. –Vipz (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Soviet Union bro ComradeHektor (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I love how the criteria for this article is “misonia, homophibia, religion = right-wing” That's definitely not knowing anything about the political spectrum. Do you want a name? Daniel Ortega. ComradeHektor (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But hey, there's always the classic ""It wasn't true socialism"" ;) @Vipz ComradeHektor (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,
actually existing socialism
" currently making positive social progress.
Whether or not Soviet Union was "true socialism" is another debate, but you're here arguing that modern-day Belarus is socialist? –Vipz (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, apart from the fact that I don't agree with that (you're basically saying the entire Eastern Bloc was never socialist), my point is that Lukasenko is politically to the left of Putin (in the post-Soviet context), and since This is a centrist politician, why not consider him center left/left authoritarian, like Ortega? ComradeHektor (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources call Lukashenko centrist or left-wing, then sure. Some freely accessible sources from the Internet touch on it:
  • Shchurko (2022), East European Journal of Society and Politics, "From Belarus to Black Lives Matter": Populist Lukashenko formally declares continuity between the Soviet command economy and his economic policy but, in fact, allows for many neoliberal transformations to happen in the country and facilitates the accumulation of wealth and capital in the hands of a few individuals that lead to state privatization, precarization of the labor force, and the devastation of the social services as state support for education and health care wither.
  • Kunitskaya (2020), Jacobin, "In Belarus, the Left Is Fighting to Put Social Demands at the Heart of the Protests" The left-wing movement has been in crisis for a long time, because Lukashenko himself used quasi-socialist slogans to come to power. When right-wingers call him “Soviet” and “communist,” he doesn’t seem to mind. Soviet monuments, street names, and holidays have been preserved in full in Belarus. So, somehow it was “decided” that he was a “leftist.”
A conservative populist with a coat of red paint is not a leftist, he is an
opportunist. He himself stated during his first 1994 presidential campaign "I am neither with the leftists nor the rightists." Centrism is another word for maintaining the status quo, but the status quo of dominant Belarusian politics are heavily right-wing policies. –Vipz (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't want to accuse you, but sources aside, you left out the "antisemitic" part of Alexander Lukashenko#Controversial statements in that reply reading "I love how the criteria for this article is “misonia, homophibia, religion = right-wing”". It's very disgusting to even think of portraying someone who praised Hitler as left-wing. –Vipz (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does Bakunin sound familiar to you?
neo-antisemitism are on the left. ComradeHektor (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Vipz And about Hitler, well, Robert Mugabe has something to say about that (and about everything else): > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/robert-mugabe-s-most-eccentric-quotes-9143930.html . I like how liberal people believe that they were the ones who invented the left and that before them only the far right and conservatives existed. The Cuba that you admire so much created forced labor camps for homosexuals in the 60's. ComradeHektor (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not admiring historical Cuba, nor any of its contemporaries that pursued similar reactionary social policies not unlike most of their Western counterparts. You keep bringing up irrelevant politicians and topics to the discussion, while I actually went out and searched for sources on the political alignment of Lukashenko (the topic of this discussion). I don't know what's your goal here; I'm not going to respond to any of the inflammatory claims you put above. :) –Vipz (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz I was writing the text below but you didn't let me respond XD anyway, I can also look for sources that say the opposite, but most of them are in Russian. ComradeHektor (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm going to be honest with you, if you had only focused on Belarusian politics you may have been right, but by mixing all this with Western politics you have made a mistake by ignoring the cultural differences of both (just to give you an example, Navalny is a liberal center-right politician who is in favor of same-sex marriage, while the Communist Party of the Russian Federation opposes it). Lukashenko is to the right of let's say Brehzniev, But comparing its political positions and actions with Russia, it is on the left of the political spectrum. That is why characterizing it that way, ignoring everything I explained here (and what the Russians and Belarusians themselves think) seems misguided to me. ComradeHektor (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I found:
Looking at his entire history, apart from the fact that he was the only Belarusian parliamentarian to oppose the disintegration of the USSR in a vote, it leaves me with the image of a politician who took a turn towards the left and authoritarianism to ingratiate himself with what he thought his people, who in general did not experience the shock policy implemented by Yelsin thanks to him. ComradeHektor (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz and @LeonChrisfield I found this other one in English, the only one that talks in depth about the "shock therapy" policy (it cites many other sources): https://www.grunge.com/783615/who-is-belarusian-president-alexander-lukashenko/ ComradeHektor (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the first quote, I found a source that contradicts it:
ComradeHektor (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it leaves me with the image of a politician who took a turn towards the left: Your image of Lukashenko is original research.
Every subsequent source you've posted so far doesn't contradict my description of the guy as a "conservative populist with a coat of red paint" and an "opportunist". Potrafke and Bjørnskov (2011) in the above quote touch on the events of the 1990s, and whatever else is stated in this source is naturally out of date with events after its publication in 2011. Nonetheless, that "communist" label is very casually placed there, without offering an explanation on how is it "communist".
Bertelsmann Transformation Index report on Belarus from 2018 touches on Lukashenko's conservatism, opportunism, and privatization efforts in mid-2010s (BTI 2018 Country Report - Belarus):
  • His prevalent conservatism notwithstanding, the continuity of Lukashenko’s rule has come through expediency, pragmatism and opportunism in making changes, even where this would apparently contradict previous strongly-held positions.
  • After Russia’s decision to move toward charging market prices for its energy deliveries, and in the wake of the global financial crisis, some structural reforms were announced, including a privatization program and the reduction of administrative barriers to opening a private business.
  • In 2015 to 2016, the Belarusian government improved cooperation with the World Bank, the IMF, the EU and the U.S. in supporting the private sector. The IMF and World Bank are assisting the Belarusian government in bringing new foreign investors and privatizing state enterprises. An ambitious action plan for large-scale privatization was developed by the National Agency for Investments and Privatization at the end of 2016, which includes 38 investment projects in various sectors of the economy.
Maslyukov (1998), "A Report from Minsk", Monthly Review; opportunism:
  • In 1995 Belarus elected its first parliament after the Soviet period. [...] Then there were the “independent” members grouped in the fraction “Agreement”—primarily local bigwigs and notables without a political program of their own, but ready to support Lukashenko (for a reasonable price) in everything. [...] The block “Agreement” could swing the parliament—either to the left or to the right—when it was convenient for the president.
I'll continue searching for sources to support inclusion of Belarus in this article. –Vipz (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, that gives the image of a centrist and pragmatic politician. He could not be characterized as conservative since at any time he can abandon said policy (as he has done on other occasions, for example regarding abortion). 186.32.216.85 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The abortion policy Lukashenko "abandoned" was legislated before his tenure; his government made changes to it in 2014, in line with conservative
anti-abortion stances. He is characterized as conservative by the source I provided above, and there are probably more such sources (up to now I focused on "right-wing" rather than "conservative"). In centre between what is Lukashenko, anyway? There are only pro-Lukashenko and anti-Lukashenko currents, and the latter are simply banned from participating. –Vipz (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
There are radical left politicians who are anti-abortion: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latin-americas-leftist-leaders-are-abortion-gay-rights-rcna3935. You gave a good description of Belarusian politics, by the way ComradeHektor (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is still in position #105 in the ranking. This is the same as if I said that Cuba became "right-wing" since in the 2000s they privatized water and allowed private businesses after the Special Period. In the same thing you quoted it says: "After Russia’s decision to move toward charging market prices for its energy deliveries, and in the wake of the global financial crisis..." That is, they were forced by circumstances. ComradeHektor (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of the sources that talk about the economy of Belarus (citation format included):
Most scholars agree that it is a
market socialist economy @Vipz. ComradeHektor (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The first source you bring up is luckily
state capitalist but is on the path towards just regular Putin-style oligarchy (they've been integrating into one since the inception of the Union State). –Vipz (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nowhere is there any mention of strong privatization, the most that is done is a mention of future plans and projects that by now have already been abandoned with current events. Now the entire region is being structured towards a war economy that will require strong economic centralization in the hands of the state and public-private cooperation in various areas. And regarding cultural and social life, all of this is inherited from the times of the USSR as I mentioned before. ComradeHektor (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz (Note that the source I cited is from 2020 and yours is from 2018, and is talking about said plans in the future tense). ComradeHektor (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, searching for more current sources, I found that no major privatizations have been carried out since 2011 ComradeHektor (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that do not talk about political orientation

There are a large number of sources that do not mention anything about the

political orientation
of a politician or a government. For example in the case of the Syrian Republic or many African dictatorships. I think many discussions on this page occur for the same reason. 186.32.216.85 (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a large number of sources which are not reliable - being either junk sources or
opinion tier only. Removing some of these. - Rotary Engine talk 08:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Singapore

I believed Singapore should remain on the list despite certain people disputing and removing it as:

- The ruling party PAP is mentioned as a socially conservative party that has ruled Singapore uninterrupted since independence and attempt's to weaken the opposition parties and gerrymanders seats

- Dictatorships could still hold elections such as South Korea under Park Chung Hee (prior Yusin) and Turkey under Erdogan.

- Singapore actually oppresses communist and socialist such as "Operation Spectrum" and jailing Chia Thye Poh - Singapore ranks poorly in press freedom index - Singapore arrest pollical dissidents Mhaot (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of which makes it a right-wing dictatorship; far less something which is described by reliable sources as a right-wing dictatorship. Relying on original research such as the above is expressly against core policy. Please read
WP:NOR. Rotary Engine talk 14:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

South Africa

Recently re-added with two sources:; both bare URLs only https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/11141433/from-dictatorship-to-democracy-in-south-africa https://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/chapter-1-victory-nationalist-party-1948

The first is an abstract for an article which is accepted for publication in German publisher Mohr Siebeck's series, "Beiträge zur Rechtsgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts". The publisher & series seem reliable; but the article is not yet published.

The second is taken from "From: Lessons of the 1950s By Richard Monroe, March-May 1984". This was originally produced in "Inqaba ya basebenzi #13", published by the Marxist Workers' Tendency of the African National Congress. This is not a reliable source.

Removing pending discussion. - Rotary Engine talk 08:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rotary Engine, I don't know who put South Africa back in, but I just removed it, as I did all of Africa, for two main reasons: that content (ALL of that content) was poorly sourced and often poorly edited, and there was no solid sourcing for calling SA a dictatorship. I have the feeling one editor, and one editor alone, is responsible for a lot of this poorly verified and poorly written content. TYMR, not every dictatorship is right-wing. Religious autocracies are not automatically right-wing. Not every repressive government is a dictatorship. Etc. Drmies (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • TYMR, were you serious? Sourced to History.com and a page from the National Park Service about the home of Abraham Lincoln? And none of those sources verify "right-wing dictatorship"? Drmies (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colonies

The list currently includes a number of African colonies of European nations. These were not independent nations with their own dictators. Should these continue to be listed separately or are they better covered under the listing for the colonising nation? Rotary Engine talk 21:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right-wing_dictatorship&oldid=1231147514"