Final answer:
When someone takes power of a country through illegitimate means, they are commonly known as a usurper, indicating control without legal right. This differs from a dictator, who may have similar illegitimate beginnings but also suggests absolute authority over a nation's governance and people. The terms tyrant and revolutionary also describe leaders with power gained through non-standard means but have distinct connotations from usurper and dictator.
Step-by-step explanation:
If you were to take the power of a country through illegitimate or controversial means, you could rightly be called a usurper.
In a democracy, legitimacy of leadership is achieved through free and fair elections where the populace votes for their leaders. In contrast, an individual who seizes power through non-democratic means is often referred to as a usurper, which implies taking control without legal right or authority. Dictators may also gain power through illegitimate means; however, the term dictator additionally suggests the individual has absolute authority over the state's government and population. This authority is often maintained by force, intimidation, and suppression of personal freedoms.
Historically, some dictators, such as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, have used brutal tactics to control and instill fear in the populace. Others like Napoleon and Anwar Sadat are sometimes considered 'benevolent' for making certain positive contributions, despite the controversial means by which they attained power. Moreover, a tyrant is similar to a dictator, often characterized by cruel and oppressive rule, whereas a revolutionary is one who seeks to overthrow a government or social order in favor of a new system, not necessarily through undemocratic means.
It is also important to consider that legitimacy can be subjective; what may seem legitimate to some may not be to others. An authoritarian government may hold elections, but if those elections are not free and fair, the government can still be considered illegitimate.