The “Good” Dictator: The Semiotics of “Desirable” Authoritarianism

Durrani, S

The “Good” Dictator: The Semiotics of “Desirable” Authoritarianism

Durrani, S

Permalink

Publisher:: Taylor and Francis Group
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of International Communication, 2025, 19, (2025), pp. 766-786
Issue Date:: 2025-01-28

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (260.6 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Durrani, S https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8740-8388
dc.date.accessioned	2025-01-28T05:32:57Z
dc.date.available	2024-11-20
dc.date.available	2025-01-28T05:32:57Z
dc.date.issued	2025-01-28
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of International Communication, 2025, 19, (2025), pp. 766-786
dc.identifier.issn	1321-6597
dc.identifier.issn	2162-7177
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/184339
dc.description.abstract	While authoritarianism is deemed undesirable, whether an autocrat is considered an ally or an adversary impacts how they are seen in Western media. This leads to the question— while it is easy to imagine adversarial autocrat archetypes (e.g., Vladimir Putin)—what comprises the visual archetype of a “good autocrat”? To answer this, this article examines the visual news coverage given by the influential Western publication, Time, to two Pakistani autocrats allied with the United States: General Zia-ul-Haq and General Pervez Musharraf. Using semiotic methodology, this article presents a triadic heuristic model outlining the visual archetype of a “good” autocrat: Humanization, Absence, and Hobson’s Choice. It demonstrates how visual cues associated with these heuristics serve to construct regimes of truth that present desirable autocrats as “valuable” bodies whose soft power is constructed at the expense of an “other.” Finally, it interrogates the significance of these dynamics in analyzing contemporary populist “strongmen.”
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Taylor and Francis Group
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of International Communication
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	16 Studies in Human Society, 19 Studies in Creative Arts and Writing, 20 Language, Communication and Culture
dc.subject.classification	4701 Communication and media studies
dc.title	The “Good” Dictator: The Semiotics of “Desirable” Authoritarianism
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	19
utslib.location.activity	Australia
utslib.for	16 Studies in Human Society
utslib.for	19 Studies in Creative Arts and Writing
utslib.for	20 Language, Communication and Culture
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	true
dc.rights.license	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.date.updated	2025-01-28T05:32:56Z
pubs.issue	2025
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	19
utslib.citation.issue	2025

Abstract:

While authoritarianism is deemed undesirable, whether an autocrat is considered an ally or an adversary impacts how they are seen in Western media. This leads to the question— while it is easy to imagine adversarial autocrat archetypes (e.g., Vladimir Putin)—what comprises the visual archetype of a “good autocrat”? To answer this, this article examines the visual news coverage given by the influential Western publication, Time, to two Pakistani autocrats allied with the United States: General Zia-ul-Haq and General Pervez Musharraf. Using semiotic methodology, this article presents a triadic heuristic model outlining the visual archetype of a “good” autocrat: Humanization, Absence, and Hobson’s Choice. It demonstrates how visual cues associated with these heuristics serve to construct regimes of truth that present desirable autocrats as “valuable” bodies whose soft power is constructed at the expense of an “other.” Finally, it interrogates the significance of these dynamics in analyzing contemporary populist “strongmen.”

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/184339