Dictatorship, as a form of government, has fallen into opprobrium in the course of the 20th century. This was not always the case. "Dictator" was originally a Roman constitutional office, exercising absolute powers for a limited term during emergencies. Later, with repeated renewals of authority extending it to an indefinite term, it was used or abused by Julius Caesar before his assassination.
In modern times "dictator" has come to mean an autocratic ruler whose power is not hereditary or otherwise traditional in origin; that is, in contrast to an autocratic monarch. This writer is not aware of any ruler of modern times who has self-adopted it as a title, but in the earlier part of the 20th century the connotations of the word were not universally negative. In Marxist-Leninist theory the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a necessary step on the road to communism (though the term implied the authority of the Communist Party rather than necessarily an individual autocrat). In fascist ideology, personal dictatorship was fully embraced as superior to constitutionalism. Fascist leaders assumed titles, Duce and Fuehrer, that plainly connoted autocratic personal rule.
Since 1945, however, the use of such overtly dictatorial titles has fallen out of fashion. Even the most autocratic and personalist leaders of the last half-century have tended to honor constitutionalism in the breach by adopting titles like president. In the case of Haiti under the Duvaliers, as we shall see, this was improved to President for Life. One of the rare exceptions was Jean-Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic, who elevated himself from president to "Emperor" -- an autocratic title, certainly, but one with powerful traditionalist connotations.
Dictatorship, then, is a political order that dares not speak its name. Yet it is anything but unusual in the post-1945 world. Throughout the post-colonial Third World, dictatorship or so...