Saturday, July 11, 2015

Authoritarianism between Strongmen and Dictators


      The streets of Cairo erupted with riots in January 2011 as the “Arab Spring” moved with astonishing alacrity from Tunisia to Egypt. The “People of Egypt”, fed-up with the corruption of their aging president and his cronies, were chanting a slogan soon to contaminate the entire Near East: “The People Wants to Overthrow the Regime”!

      Not everyone was happy about deposing Hosni Mubarak, certainly not US Vice President Joe Biden who was ridiculed by many -myself included- when he opined that “Mubarak is not a dictator”. To be sure the US had invested in and propped-up the Egyptian president for 3 decades and Mr. Biden's anxiety was shared by many policymakers regardless of their true opinion about the nature of Mr. Mubarak's administration.

      But was Mr. Biden wrong after all? That Egypt was -and still is- not a Democracy is a no-brainer but does that necessarily mean that its ruler was a “dictator”, a most abhorrent appellation in today's climate of political correctness? Here we have to resort to the tried-and-true wealth of the English Language, an infinitely valuable asset to clarify all ambiguity and dispel every doubt.

      The year was 1986, well before Digital Technology had become ubiquitous. And I, full of curiosity, decided to tap into the Time Magazine archives neatly bound and available, from its first issue in 1923, free of charge to all visitors to Syracuse University's library in Upstate New York. How I wish Syria had comparable facilities with the resources to store its old literary heritage but I digress...

      Naturally, what interested me the most in that venerable publication, was just about any mention of the Near East in general and Syria in particular. I was not to be frustrated though of course -and in retrospect luckily for Syria- the Near East have not always been the focus of international media and the articles that I had sought were therefore few and far between.

      Back to the issue under consideration. The World according to the Time Magazine of the 1960's and prior was not as full of dictators as it now is sadly and ominously the case, that infamous epithet was reserved for super-villains such as Hitler (never mind that he was named Time's Magazine's “Person of the Year” in 1938), Mussolini, or Stalin (affectionately referred to by F.D. Roosevelt as “Uncle Joe” but that's another story). The Arab World -as far as I could tell- had no dictators back then, not in today's traditional and acknowledged sense in any case.

      But Authoritarianism did exist and there surely were despots all over the Arab World back then as now, they just were called differently. For you see, Colonel Adib Shishakily who dominated Syrian politics in the early 1950's was a “Strongman”, so were Colonel Salah Jadid in the late 1960's and President Saddam Hussein right until August 1990. Needless to say Authoritarian Rulers do not necessarily have to be divided into Strongmen or Dictators; we also have Monarchs, all sorts of them: Kings, Sheikhs, Sultans, Shahs..but somehow most -if not all- of them are tacitly treated as legitimate and “constitutional”. The implications are obvious: it is despicable when a “Dictator” passes his Seat to his son, that would be blatant usurpation, but perfectly natural and accepted for a “legitimate” Monarch to pass his Throne to his son and heir; if he happens in the process to disinherit his brother and -for decades- heir-apparent while agonizing, so be it! This is exactly what King Hussein of Jordan did on his deathbed back in 1999 and no none batted an eye.

      By now it should be axiomatic that “Dictators” are bad. They are corrupt; they kill their own people; they harbor ominous designs on peaceful democracies and their equally peaceful monarchical neighbors, not to mention their support of International Terrorism. But what about Strongmen? Are they good or bad? Don't they have the same authority as the Dictators? Had they not acquired the ultimate power through similar means? Well, not necessarily..

      For Strongmen fulfill an extremely important task, one that is essential for the Nation's peace, prosperity, even its very survival: they keep Law and Order. They also form -along with their Royal brethren- part and parcel of the “International Community” and identify their interests with those of the “Civilized World”. They are also legitimate: they hold elections (in reality referendums but who is counting), allow parliamentarian debates, participate in international organizations, open their countries to benevolent foreign investors, invest their wealth in purchasing the latest military technology (to defend their countries against dictators of course), and accept military assistance from disinterested foreign powers. Strongmen do not commit aggression, God forbid! They merely defend their Homeland as President Saddam Hussein did when he protected the “Eastern Gate of the Arab Nation” 1980-1988. Only Dictators attack their neighbors, as the very same Saddam Hussein -oops- did when he invaded the little Democracy that was Kuwait in 1990.

      So there exist two sorts of Authoritarian rulers: the first is bad by the mutual consensus of the entire Humanity and that is the Dictator. The second type is what an ignorant might call a “Good Dictator” but in reality that would be an insult to the gentle and caring Strongman, whose heart belongs to his People and who spares neither effort nor sacrifice to promote its welfare. Evidently what applies to Strongmen is just as valid in the case of Monarchs, we all know that the King of Saudi Arabia -a paragon of compassion and benevolence- has a Consultative Assembly, to give but one example.

      Dictator is bad, Strongman is better, an Oriental Monarch remains the best. Not all despots are alike, not by a long shot. The same analysis could be used to study the disparities between “Regimes” and “Governments” or “Administrations”. We all know that Regimes are bad and Governments are good but still, you cannot overemphasize such a glaring difference and we can always use friendly reminders.



      I look forward to the day when academics and pundits give this important debate the interest it so desperately needs and make their conclusions public for the benefit of mankind. 

No comments:

Post a Comment