20th Century Female Dictator, Not a Monarch?

Indira Gandhi's "inheritance" definitely wasn't served on a platter.
No, but it still gave her an edge.

I guess what I'm looking for is a woman charismatic enough to become dictator on her own, I guess like a female Mussolini or Franco or something. Rather than someone who becomes dictator after the last dictator falls/dies/whatevers, she is the "first" one.
 
My first thought was Elena Ceaucescu (have her husband die, and leave everything to her).

If relations-to-male dictators is cheating, I wonder how dystopian you could make Thatcher's Britain...

Easiest way would be for a sort of "Protect and Survive" type scenario with some sort of limited nuclear war erupting taking out most British cities and most of Parliament but have Thatcher survive and effectively become a dictator if for no other reason then to try and keep things from completely collapsing. Similarly semi apocalyptic scenarios could result in pretty much any female leader becoming a dictator if out of perceived necessity and less actual desire.
 
Winnie Mandala had the makings of a dictator. She was married to Nelson, but he spent most of their marriage in jail on Robbin's Island. If the ANC had taken a darker turn, she could have ended up like Robert Mugabe.
 
I somehow find this happening unlikelier post ww2. 1917 to the 30s seems like the perfect time infact.
Somehow, I do not think that Alexandra Kollontaj was ever close to the position where she could take over the Bolsheviks herself. And I am really at loss at thinking of any other woman able to even attempt that in that timeframe. Rosa Luxemburg has been named, but she as a dictator is really, really a long shot in many ways, even assuming a successful Spartakist revolution.
 
For an extra challenge, you can try to make it someone who wasn't related to a male leader who either had the more powerful job(eg. Mao) or preceded the woman(eg. Nehru).

(Not making a new rule here, but I will be extra-impressed if someone can meet my criterion.)
Ideally that would be the rule, as said in the OP - no inheritance. It almost definitely counts as inheritance if it's the spouse or daughter of the previous leader.
One phenomenon that is at play in many developing countries is that there is a political class that produces leaders, and that class may be limited to a few families. In such countries, even if the general status of women is generally worse than say, The West, class scores higher than gender in the political machinery. This explains why even though many Western countries like Canada (Kim Campbell became PM in a leadership convention) and the US have never elected a woman head of state, Pakistan has had a Bhuto, India a couple of Ghandis, The Philippines an Aquino, etc. women presidents or prime ministers.

So in this context, the OP disqualifying a woman that has the same family name as a preceding male head of state isn't quite fair, because male successors will be drawing from the same class and family bias/advantage as well.
 
Tricky challenge.

The "no monarchies" rule also disqualifies any female dictator from the Kim family in North Korea, the Duvalier family, etc.

Another problem is that powerful women in most countries in the 20th century preferred to marry powerful men. So as long as the hypothetical female dictator is married at all, odds are that she's going to be married to someone who is also quite powerful, and likely a useful pillar of her potential regime. So the "no powerful male family members helping her" criterion will be very hard to meet.
 
Last edited:
Tricky challenge.

The "no monarchies" rule also disqualifies any female dictator from the Kim family in North Korea, the Duvalier family, etc.

Another problem is that powerful women in most countries in the 20th century preferred to marry powerful men. So as long as the hypothetical female dictator is married at all, odds are that she's going to be married to someone who is also quite powerful, and likely a useful pillar of her potential regime. So the "no powerful male family members helping her" criterion will be very hard to meet.

What about a Thatcher gone way off the rails, especially if the IRA goes really crazy - like kills the Royal family and has OKC bombing type attacks semi regularly.
 
What about a Thatcher gone way off the rails, especially if the IRA goes really crazy - like kills the Royal family and has OKC bombing type attacks semi regularly.
Leaving aside whether Thatcher is dictator material, I can't see 80s Britain becoming a dictatorship, since it hasn't been one since Cromwell.
 
My first thought was Elena Ceaucescu (have her husband die, and leave everything to her).

If relations-to-male dictators is cheating, I wonder how dystopian you could make Thatcher's Britain...
Not enough to make her a dictator without changing so much about this ATL Margret Thatcher’s environment and personality that the only thing she has in common with OTL’s is the name: at which point just about any woman in history can be warped to fit the criteria and the question of the thread is pointless.
 
If you enforce the 'no relationship with a prior leader' rule I cannot think of any way to get a female dictator in the 20th Century unless a military junta decides to install a woman as a 'figurehead' dictator. The other possibility would be Golda Meir declaring an emergency in a dire crisis and dismissing parliament with the support of the military (borderline but not ASB). For Maggie to do that is ASB, IMHO.
Maybe if the person was Celia Sánchez type. She was a revolutionary and activist in her own right, was basically his chief of staff and private secretary, basically founded Cuba's archives in its current form, and many historians agree that she was pivotal for the revolution's success. And Sánchez and Castro were just friends as far as anyone could tell.
 
Some would call Sheik Hasina Wajid the leader of Bangladesh a dictator. She has won the last 4 elections. There is effectively no opposition to her rule. Being a dictator does not necessarily mean you oppress people. It can also mean you have destroyed or effectively ended any opposition to your rule.
 
Top