[Moneyguy1]

Look at it objectively. For most peoples, politics, like religion are best accepted if they conform to what they are used to. Introducing a new religion or form of government takes time to be accepted. The "strongman" form of government has been the accepted practice in the Middle East for decades, if not centuries, from European domination to tribal influence. Are dictators good for a country? Sometimes yes, sometimes not. It depends on the mindset of the leadership and whether they are "benevolent" or not. I can see that such a government would be "acceptable" to a country because it removes the necessity to think, with everything decided at the top.

Was Saddam an evil ruler? Undoubtedly. Was Tito? In some instances, perhaps, but like has been mentioned above, he did keep the lid on ethnic differences. Newly proclaimed "freedom" is difficult to swallow, and those not accustomed to it do not realize that there are obligations attached as well.