It seems to me that the basic element here would be that you would have to assume a stance of pro- democracy in asserting that Napoleon is a bad leader. As far as a fascist dictator goes, Napoleon fits that role quite nicely. Napoleon is a bad leader, or can be deemed as a bad leader, because he silences voices of dissent. Napoleon does not enhance discussion and discourse from the body politic. He threatens it and bullies it into silent submission. Consider what he does to Squealer in chapter 5 and what he does to the other animals who "confess their crimes" in chapter 7. Napoleon has to be seen as a bad leader, or a leader who violates the will of his people, as a result of the ease with which he uses violence in order to consolidate his power. I think that this becomes another reason or area with which Napoleon can be seen as a bad ruler. He uses violence so easily, and against his own people/ animals, that he cannot be seen as a good ruler in such a light. Napoleon is more concerned with his own power than that of the farm. He is driven to identify himself as the bane of all on the farm and in doing so, does not acknowledge the needs of the animals. He sees himself as the beginning and end to everything on the farm, and because of this has to be seen as a bad ruler, or at least one who is non- democratic.