What makes someone cling onto power at all costs? What makes them believe that their country cannot survive without them? Time and again we have seen long time, generally aging despots cling fiercely to power. In the process they frequently destroy whatever achievements they may have accomplished. These attempts are always ultimately futile yet in case after case, the lessons of other countries are not learned.
Today there are many cases of this phenomenon. For example, Robert Mugabe is clinging desperately onto power in Zimbabwe. In the process, he has destroyed his legacy and the country that he helped to build up. This is the man who successfully fought off a racist white regime that was determined to suppress the black population and keep whites at the top of the social and economic heap. They were actively being helped by South Africa which was ruled by an equally racist white regime. Yet the outcomes in the two countries are very different. South Africa was able to dismantle the apartheid regime and establish a vibrant democracy. There is a credible opposition party in the country and there is no active suppression of dissent or alternate points of view. Zimbabwe seemed to be headed in a similar direction until recently. At some point, Mugabe decided to hang onto power and in the process destroyed the institutions and the middle class that he had helped to build over a twenty year period. The man who would have been remembered and revered as the father of his nation will instead be reviled as its destroyer.
Other cases abound specially in the Middle East. Until recently, Egypt and Tunisia were ruled by kleptomaniac dictatorships which actively and viciously suppressed dissent until they were overthrown largely through people power. Syria and Libya are both undergoing their popular unrest but in this case, the regime has responded viciously. Yemen is another such case where there is active unrest and active attempts at suppression. Dissent in Bahrain has been suppressed with the active support and help of Saudi Arabia. An interesting case is the Ivory Coast. Elections were held in which the incumbent lost. Instead of respecting the people's verdict and handing over power, he tried to cling on and triggered off a civil war which mercifully did not last too long.
There is also an additional complicating factor. Major outside powers frequently actively support dictators in developing countries. The reason cited is almost always realpolitik and it is an astonishingly short sighted policy. Outside support for a corrupt, autocratic regime generates severe resentment inside the country and inevitably leads to a backlash. The most prominent case here is Iran where the Shah was supported first by the British and then by the Americans. The extent of the support was to the extent that a democratically elected regime was actively overthrown and the dictatorship of the Shah restored. When the backlash came and the corrupt royal regime was overthrown, the resentment against the US boiled over and since then the latter has had a major problem with Iran in the region. Similarly Bahrain has stored future troubles for itself by its suppression. Instead of allowing the mounting popular pressure to dissipate, it has been capped. Pressure is thus building up under the surface. Whenever the inevitable explosion comes, the backlash will also fall on Saudi Arabia.
No comments:
Post a Comment