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