[Teocali]

for me that’s exactly how it’s work. For a government to be a dictatorship, you need a dictator. And one key element which define a person as a dictator is that his word is law, that’s in the name. doesn’t seem to be the case in Brazil right now. The second key element, which more implied in the modern definition of dictator, is that it stay in position of power against the will of the majority of it’s country inhabitants. Against, doesn’t seem to be the case in Brazil right now.

I would welcome any elements which would invalidate my (quite incomplete, I recon) perception of the situation.

[ToucanLoucan]

> for me that’s exactly how it’s work.

For history it isn't. Read up on the fall of Wiemar Germany.

[Teocali]

I did. And Hitler was never elected in a position of power. He strong armed the weimar republic to be named in chancellor, and only after that he held some referendum to validate his decision.

Also, when he is named chancellor, it’s been a while since the democratic value of weimar were hurting. Paul Von Hindenburg started as soon as 1930 to govern through executive act, ignoring and/or strong arming the Reichstag. Not really what I would call a healthy democratic government.

Also, Hitler was named as chancellor through a plot of the current weimar government to avoid calling new elections, like the laws said they must.

[InTheArena]

The last point is incorrect - as you yourself note, Hinderburg had the power as symbolic head of state to declare who was to form a government. Therefore, although the Nazis won more votes than anyone else in 1932(the Nazis won 232 to the SDP's 133 seats), conservatives and the SPD blocked it.