Can I ask why Venezuela is included in the Dictator column and countries like Bahrain are completely missing?

Furthermore, why is Tunisia (which according to Polity was up until 2010 less democratic than Venezuela http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/tun2.htm http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/ven2.htm) included in the democracy column?

Whilst, as the Polity IV data shows, Venezuela doesn't have the greatest level of democracy, it is still on the democratic side rather than the authoritarian side and would probably be better understood as an anocracy.

I understand that with the context of the Arab Spring it'd be nice (and convenient) to include Tunisia in the democracy column, but given that a transfer of power hasn't occurred yet, we can't make any meaningful judgement as to the strength of its democracy at the moment.

Unfortunately though, I imagine that this is probably due to an editorial guideline or assimilated views from the popular media in the United States. A shame.

“Thus Always to Tyrants” is said to have been shouted by Marcus Brutus during the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. It was also shouted by John Booth during his assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865. Also, it is the state of Virginia’s motto, which is associated with the American Revolution (assassination of British rule).

It is basically seen as an epithet against abuse of power. It can be literally translated into “it always happens to tyrants”.

Thusalwaystogenius

Turn your cameron folks, putin your votes, ban the game-bashir's and find out hu's gonna win

Putin and Yanukovych are not dictators. They were elected fair and square. Typical western garbage propaganda. Whine and smear when those who would pander to western interests are not elected.

... so I can't see how he gets put in with the dictators.

And neither Ban nor Lagarde should be put in a list that contains the heads of governments, since neither heads a government.

And Netanyahu is an odd choice, since he heads a government that insists on controlling several million Palestinians by pointing a gun at them.

The idea that Chavez is a dictator is laughable propaganda and everyone outside the US and the disgruntled 'natural rulers' of Venezuela recognises that. It's true that Putin won an election but he used some dirty tricks, kind of like JFK in 1960 and Bush in 2004 (but not 2000, when he didn't win at all.) But, more to the point, who on earth elected Papademos and Monti?

Aliyev, Nazarbyaev, or Berdimuhamedow? What standard for defining dictatorship are you using for this FP? Were you just trying to fill a post-Soviet quota with leaders who you thought might garner better name recognition?

eom

lol I thought it was kind of fun.

I don't know how its judged, but the IMF is a scary organization. I put Lagarde to win it all.

my best friend's mother makes $72 an hour on the laptop. She has been without a job for 6 months but last month her income was $7745 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more......... m a k e c a s h 4 . c o m

this is a joke. it's funny. I laughed. no need to go on saying "Oh these westerners don't know a drue democrat when they see one". in popular culture and the minds of a lot of people, these dictators are people who cling to power, even when it's illegal. I agree that Bush never won his first election, the news just messed up the time zones. but the fact is, there are some really stupid people in this country, whole regions of them, and whatever happened, happened without a ballot fixing. And JFK did a pretty good job for a "cheater". one more thing. "EEBAUMANN", yes, yes they are trying to get names people know, because most of the people doing this don't know who the mayor of their town is, much less a dictator form a small country in europe

What the hell? Why wouldn't they have picked Khamenei to represent Iran before today? It's not like the power struggle between him and Ahmadinejad wasn't decided a while ago. I specifically picked SCAF to win over Ahmadinejad because he's been more or less sidelined. If I had known the round would have been between SCAF and Khamenei, I would have picked Khamenei. Pulling a surprise substitution like this is ridiculous and unfair.

I think the Khomeini substitution is hilarious and appropriate, but none of these picks are consistent. Khomeini gets through because of consolidated (authoritarian) political power, but Sein goes on because of democratic reforms? The 2011 explanations were equally random. I love the concept, writing, and humor, but nothing, this year or last, holds any rhyme or reason.

Many, many Democrats vs. Dictators fans coming into it are DG wonks. Maybe for 2013 you can keep the humor but get input from some big-in-the-field practitioners to avoid disappointing and alienating people from what truly is an excellent idea and a huge traffic-generating concept. I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige.

Sorry, replacing Amadinajad with Khameni at the last minute is like replacing Lehigh with Duke at the last minute. TOTALLY UNFAIR!! The Scaf dominates the Iranian president, but has no chance against Khameni!! I DEMAND A new bracket!

Sorry, what's that about Duke?

this is a joke! FP - There is no way the SCAF could ever take on the religious leadership in Iran...we all agree on that. But Ahmanidejad had been damaged in the recent week - so be fair!!! What the hell was this substitution about??? Even if you meant it as a trick i.e. "the religious leadership pulls the strings", we all know this, but this has to be more elaborate...this matchup was fixed, and I want to get my subscription to FP!!!

No, make that: New Yaaark&London against the entire world! In the end-stage - the game calls for "total spectrum domination" by New Yaaark & London over everything on the planet. I won - send me the prize !

This is actually not a bad fun idea but it does seem to have a few flaws.

1. Its democrats against democrats and dictators against dictators so the title and premise is wrong.

2. Some of these dictators were democraticallt elected even if the fraud was upfront ratyer than buried in money like the democrats!

This is going to be ugly. German vs. Israel. Merkel will have to be very careful with her pre and post-game comments. She'll definitely need to avoid talking about how she's developed a "solution" to Bibi's offensive sets. And certainly no mentions of "hit the showers" after the game.

These polls are unrealistic

What? Where is Obama and Cameron?

jajajaja The Guerrila Rousseff?

This is crazy fool

I hope this doesn't come down to Merkel vs Putin & Koni.

(Koni = Putin's dog)

(A comment not merely on this article)

I am an average Internet surfer. I did not approach this site with any prejudice. I found this site by following links and resort here because many stories published on this site are on the topics that I am interested in. I have visited FP on and off for about two years now, and think I have seen enough to discern a few patterns, which, to be specific, are that the stories here can always be pigeonholed into 4 categories.

The first category, the stories that concern America: America is ever righteous.
America might have made mistakes, but that is only because they were perpetrated by certain individuals the writers of the stories happen to disagree with. The system is never wrong. And the writers always employ respectful language even when it comes to the party that would bear the most vitriol.

Then, there are those that concern the "Allies": the "puny" Europe for example. Here, the tone degrades a little. The writers would often critize the system or the culture or the national character of their "Allies" in slightly condescending language, just enough to make the point that they are inferior to the superior America. But it is still all under "friendly" terms; just a little jab from their "big brother". America is sure that the intentions of the "Allies" are good, only that their competence is questionable.

Then, there are those that concern the "Arch-Enemies": China and Russia (and Iran for the moment). Here, the tone changes completely. China and Russia (and Iran) are simply EVIL. Nothing good can come of them. Their systems are worthless. Their leaders are simply BAD guys, without the least ounce of humanity. The language used here is without fail denunciatory, with a fair amount of jeering and contempt mixed in.

Then, at the bottom of the heap is North Korea. What a sorry existence. In fact, the writers feel so sorry for it that they only make fun of it, in a benevolent attempt to make the atmosphere lighter. The language is completely without respect, and their leaders are mere wackos that somehow managed to pull off a stand-off against the almighty America. But since this is a fact that the Americans find both inexplicable and humiliating (how can such a small and poor country defy the will of the mighty Americans?), North Korea's leaders are painted as mystery wackos with magical powers when it suits the purpose to explain away America's failures, and also as physically feeble gooks that cannot stand one punch from the mighty White man when the occasion calls for the (verbally) beating the hell out of them to establish their inferiority and to have some fun and pleasure of putting the weak in their place to avenge America's frustratoin and humiliation. Don't blame the writers for discrimination. They did not do it on purpose. They just discriminate against the Asians so much that they could neither see it nor help it any more.

Anyway, this four categories of characterization and language are absolutely not to be mis-applied. Can you imagine North Korea's contemptible category is used for America, or America's righteous category used for China?

The fact is, of my whole experience with FP, for all my reading here in two years, I have never seen one positive story about China or Russia, not even to mention Iran and North Korea. You know what? I happen to think that China's Commnuist party might have actually done something right getting their country past Japan to become the world's second largest economy, weathering the global financial crisis without slowing down their through-the-roof GDP growth rate, and keeping their 1.5 billion people largely content and employed. I always see reports on the flarings up of China' protests. How many protests would America have if it had 1.5 billion people? And do not tell me that the Americans, even in their current numbers, do not protest. Where is the media when it comes to protests in America? Why don't they report every protest at home with the same voraciousness and unconditional support that they do in China?

Also, during the recent Russian election, there was not a single positive report of Putin. Does not a story have two sides? There were anti-Putin rallies, and there were pro-Putin rallies, but only the former were reported. And according to FP reports, Russia is basically a failed state that gets nothing right. Is it really the case? Does not Putin at least get SOME things right to lift the living standards of the Russians so dramatically compared to his predecessors? Does not Putin at least get SOME things right to make Russia again a power to be reckoned with? And after having done these things for the Russians, does his support still only come from stuffing every ballot box he could get his hands on, as the reports were impressing? Does not he deserve to be considered the most qualified candidate for Russia's Presidency in his own right?

You know, things like this, the other sides of the stories, the sides that do not get reported, the inconvinient truths that people do not like or want to hear, are the real emblems of honest journalism. And the lack of which really do the objectivity of media such as FP in. Do all Foreign Policy stories on China and Russia have to be negative? Is China and Russia's pure evilness, abjectness, corruptedness, and worthlessness all Foreign Policy have to say to its readers when it comes to reporting about these countries? Are their polities, for all the complexity of their existences, really without one positive side to report on? Is the exclusive and incessant reporting of these unadulterated negative views helpful in giving the readers an objective picture of these countries and forming anything less than radical "foreign policy" outlooks?

There is only one result and one purpose to such non-stop exclusive negative reporting of the countries considered America's rivals, while America and its allies are portrayed in a whole different light with a whole other different standard: to make America look good and anyone that it deems a threat look bad. And if this is not "imperialist propaganda", then what is?

I know that the term, "imperialist propaganda", may be seen as often associated with and found in Communist propaganda against America (think about it: when the word "propaganda" is used with Communist or America's other rival countries, people simply assume it is true; but when used to describe the behavior of the American media, people only find it not credible and even objectionable. Why such diametrical perceptions?), thus is dismissed by many at the outset as annoying, meaningless, false, slandering, and even whining; a slogan and accusation that, since it is often uttered by the Communists, only the exact opposite of which can be true. Well, at least that is how I felt. But then the patterns emerged, and I could no longer hold the term against the fact it tells. Then there came a point when I just was not going to take it any more, so I spoke up.

The writer of this piece first stages a buffoonery using the North Korean leader, mocking him for his ideology and his ideology's rigid clamp on him, and then putting the term in his mouth to mock the term discrediting its veracity. The writer then uses the buffoonery version of the discredited term on FP itself to show his disregard and contempt for its worth to describe FP and thus disassociating FP with the term. In doing so, he also mocks and discredits it further. Finally, the writer, by redundantly repeating the term and thus framing it as a trite and empty slogan, strenghtens the effects of his parody of it.

The intended result of the parody, of course, is to make anyone who dares to accuse FP having anything to do with "imperialist" and "proganda" appear the same raving ideologue wacko as the mocked North Korean leader, a mere ranting little yellow man who only does so because he is brainwashed by the Communist propaganda in which he grew up, is so meek that he only dares to speak behind the anonymity and the protection of the thousands of miles of distance of separation the Internet provides between him and the tough FP staff and writers (the writer of course forgets about the drones and the strategic bombers to which Americans oftern resort when it comes to getting rid of their critics; perhaps FP can hire one too?), and is so physcially weak that he is easily crushed by the much stronger and superior White men whose martial spirit is obviously so strong that it often leads them to killing sprees of foreign civilians, hunting them as games, and ever so gracious and honorable afterward in paying $50,000 for each human life they took away.

By parodying the term and anyones who uses it to describe FP in the context and pretext of a buffoonery, the writer makes it possible to take no responbility for his words, and he can make his effort look like a burlesque, and easily frame anyone who has a problem with it as someone who cannot take a joke. Staging a buffooneries is also useful in that it makes what he writes readily acceptable to readers, since people do not often think critically it comes to buffooneries, and are quite amenable to be influenced when they laugh. Thus, by extracting laughs from his readers, the writer tries to simply mock away the critics and the criticism, so that he does not even need to deal with any truth that might be in it.

I happen to think that, you know, to mock away criticisms and critics through rhetorical effects might achieve the short term goal of suppressing the inconvinient things that you do not want to hear or consider threatening to your agenda, but it does not deal with the root of the problem. You might be able to make the critisms go away for a while by simply refusing to acknowledge them, but they always come back to haunt you, since the the cause of the problem is still there. Ultimately, I think that addressing them, having more objective reporting, can only be in FP's best interets as a "global magzine". People, no matter where they come from or where they are, have a craving for truth that in the end will neither be smothered by censorship nor be exploited and misled by propaganda of any kind. I just do not think you can fool all the people all the time. They will find out the truth, and the speaker of truth will have the influence that no merchant of propaganda can ever hope to rival. Still, how FP deals with the criticisms and what path it chooses will depend on how it views and positions itself: will it aspire to be an objective speaker of truth, or will it simply stay content in being a hired gun to churn out propaganda?

I know FP might argue that it is only doing the same things that news organizations in China and Russia are doing. Well, if they are doing propaganda and you are doing the same thing, then you are doing propaganda too. It only proves the point. I also know that FP may respond to the criticism by contiue mocking. Well, do what you must do. But as I have laid out, other than mocking, discrediting, and insulting your critics, you might have some better alternative to deal with the criticisms which may actually lead to your own betterment.

Finally, since the writer, in his article, made a not so tacit suggestion that anyone who criticize FP should just go away on their own initiative and refrain from reading or criticizing FP, I would make a suggestion too: that in the future if FP writers and editors are in the mood of writing or publishing any more propaganda, they should first consult their own journalistic ethics and integrity, if they still have any of those left, and see where these things would lead them to.

my neighbor's mom makes $89/hr on the computer. She has been out of a job for nine months but last month her pay check was $14103 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site .... Lazycash9.com

As a citizen of Russia, I will say that Putin's record in dictators, and talk about the falsification of the elections is lying template Western main stream media :)
But here's the thing, that all those listed in these competitions fade to the background of Putin - it's true.
Glory To Russia! :)