| Leader name | Country | Tenure in years |
| Castro | Cuba | 48 |
| Ibn Talal El-Hashim | Jordan | 47 |
| Bongo | Gabon | 42 |
| Eyadema | Togo | 42 |
| Qaddafi | Libya | 40 |
| Qabus Bin Said | Oman | 39 |
| Isa Ibn Al-Khalifah | Bahrain | 38 |
| An-Nahayan | United Arab Emirates | 38 |
| Wangchuck, Jigme Singye | Bhutan | 37 |
| Stroessner | Paraguay | 35 |
| Houphouet-Boigny | Cote d'Ivoire | 33 |
| Suharto | Indonesia | 32 |
| Tsendenbal | Mongolia | 32 |
| France-Albert Rene | Seychelles | 32 |
| Mobutu | Congo/Zaire | 32 |
| Kadar | Hungary | 31 |
| Moi | Kenya | 31 |
| Gayoom | Maldive Islands | 31 |
| Hassan II | Morocco | 31 |
| Saleh | Yemen Arab Republic | 31 |
| Dos Santos | Angola | 30 |
| Mbasongo | Equatorial Guinea | 30 |
| Ben Ali Bourguiba | Tunisia | 30 |
| Jawara | Gambia | 29 |
| Birendra | Nepal | 29 |
| Hafiz Al-Assad | Syria | 29 |
| Mugabe | Zimbabwe | 29 |
| Banda | Malawi | 28 |
| Zhikov | Bulgaria | 27 |
| Saddam Hussein | Iraq | 24 |
Are there any democratic leaders among them? Are there any leaders who significantly improved their country's fortunes? Why do you think some of these leaders last so long while basically destroying their own countries? Why don't people overthrow them?
Rather interesting list, just ever so slightly tilts in the favour of bad Dictators.
ReplyDeleteI bet Saddam Hussein was cursing the USA on when he was on trial! Only 4 more years and he would have moved up a place!
Could it be that the most successful outcome of the Cuban Revolution was that Mr. Castro managed to remain in power for 48 years, surviving several assassination attempts?
ReplyDelete48 years is equivalent to 12 American Presidential terms. Unbelievable!
Looking at the top ten, the majority (Jordan, Oman, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Bhutan) are constitutional monarchy’s therefore the leaders of these nations do not qualify as democratic leaders. Within these, absolute power is predominantly seen within the royal family (take Isa Ibn Al-Khalifah who attempted a moderate parliamentary democracy but dissolved it after it refused to pass the govt-sponsored State Security Law of 1974). Many of these remaining top ten also claim themselves to be a democracy but fail to measure up eg. Togo may be seen as democratic by the fact it holds elections but Eyadema can be viewed questionably as a democratic leader particularly with his manipulation of the political system so that term limits of his office were removed. The same can be said of Bongo in Gabon (whom in 2003 changed the constitution to eliminate restrictions on the no. of terms a president can serve) and where a multi-party system was adopted only late in his rule due to much pressure (which even within, large majorities are seen in favour of Bongo’s party). Libya whose govt states it has a unique system (Jamahiriya) which involves direct democracy just without political parties, is also more widely seen by outsiders as a military dictatorship (a term that also fits Paraguay under Stroessner). Cuba under Castro, was and still is a single party communist state, this and the fact Castro can be condemned for gross human rights abuses under his rule, including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions, makes it clear that Castro was anything but a democratic leader.
ReplyDeleteLooking into if any of these leaders have improved their countries fortunes, high economic success and development can quite possibly be seen from the following countries:
-Oman: under Qabus bin Said’s rule, the Omani economy has been radically transformed over a series of development plans beginning with the First Five¬-year Plan (1976-1980).
-Bahrain: throughout his reign, Isa Ibn Al-Khalifah dedicated himself to bolstering his country's economy, he transformed his tiny island state into a modern nation and a key financial center in the Persian Gulf and he believed that his greatest achievement was the construction of a causeway connecting his island nation with Saudi Arabia.
-United Arab Emirates: is well known for its rapidly growing economy which begin under the rule of An-Nahayan as a result of enormous oil revenues.
-Bhutan: Although Bhutan's economy is one of the world's smallest, it has grown rapidly in recent years, by eight percent in 2005 and 14 percent in 2006. By 2007, Bhutan had the second fastest growing economy in the world, with an annual economic growth rate of 22.4 percent. Bhutan also made tremendous progress in the field of communications, hydro-electric power development, financial sector, environmental protection, and industrial and infrastructural development during the Wangchuck, Jigme Singye’s reign from 1972 to 2006.
In my perspective it has been interesting to note that although all these above leaders are non-democratic, they seem to be more liberal and moderate (seeming to have more care for their citizens) than the others in the top ten who seem more authoritarian and corrupt in nature. My reason for this perception follows....
-Oman: more recently, Qabus bin Said has allowed parliamentary elections (in which women have voted and stood as candidates) and pledged greater openness and participation in government
-Bahrain: Al-Khalifah did introduce parliamentary democracy-even if he dissolve it he could still be seen as a more moderate leader, for example he was highly opposed to the death penalty
-United Arab Emirates: using the country's enormous oil revenues, An-Nahayan built up institutions such as hospitals, schools and universities and made it possible for UAE citizens to enjoy free access to them. He also decreed that the State would undertake the cost of foreign health care for those families unable to afford it. He was therefore considered a relatively liberal ruler and permitted private media.
-Bhutan: Wangchuck, Jigme Singe gave up absolute power in 1998 and sent every household in the land a new draft constitution that allowed for his impeachment. His rule was also based on the Buddhist principles of compassion and harmony. Significantly, he also coined the term Gross National Happiness, which champions individual and environmental rights over policies of greed and materialism.
An exception to this is Paraguay as Stroessner, a notorious dictator was known for several positive economic policies, including the building of the largest hydroelectric power plant in the world in Itaipu. Although Paraguay received only 15% of the contracts, it was a major factor allowing the country to have the highest rate of growth in Latin America for most of the 1970s. However, this has not benefited many citizens particularly as the dam displaced at least 80,000 Paraguayans. So I wouldn’t say that this has vastly improved the countries fortunes.
Looking at the wider context of all 30 leaders to answer “Why do you think some of these leaders last so long while basically destroying their own countries? Why don’t people overthrow them?”… I think these leaders last so long mainly due to many of them (such as Eyadema and Bongo) using their political power so that they are able to serve longer rules. The fact they are then in power so long may be, in itself, a reason for country destruction – a political system might not even been inherently bad and may have the best intentions but too much of even a good thing can lead to bad- country success and development may require fairly frequent change in political policies, so benefits can be seen in a diverse not concentrated nature. Gross abuses of power can also be seen by many of these leaders- any economic growth in their country, they have made sure they have benefited from, therefore less benefits are seen for the entire country for example Castro and Bongo (who is one of the wealthiest heads of state in the world). Abuses of power may also been as a reason why people do not overthrow them. Most opposition is poor (eg. Paraguay and many of these African nations), lacking resources to fight against well-armed military these leaders often have in their complete control. Also, free speech and media is often non-existent so it would be challenging for opposition groups to form and communicate to a much needed mass level. Blackmail, threats, violence, imprisonment etc. also dominate many of these nations, to create a strong element of fear so people cannot even begin the actions needed to overthrow.
it appears dictatorship and continuity go hand and hand...Castro, 48 years! good lord thats practically half a century!
ReplyDeleteHow do you overthrow that? the public know nothing else, what motivation is there to try?
Phoebe, interesting observations. Why do you think constitutional monarchs seem more moderate? Is it just that these are mostly Arab countries with small populations and lots of oil wealth, which would have been wealthy under almost any regime?
ReplyDeleteYou are too cautious about some of your classifications. Only Qaddafi would deny that he is a dictator, the ruler of a police state; the top 10 are without exception non-democratic, sometimes horribly so.
But as to why people don't overthrow them: what enables them to keep the opposition down? They can't personally put down every opposition member. Why do the armed forces etc. remain loyal to them rather than someone else who might improve the country? Wouldn't revolutions happen when people are doing worse?
Alex E, the public in Cuba may not personally know much else, but lots of them have relatives in the USA and can often listen to radio or TV from there - so it's not as if they are entirely ignorant of the alternatives. As for motivation, many people try very dangerous things (like getting on flimsy rafts to cross the sea separating Cuba from Miami) to escape Cuba - why not another dangerous thing like overthrowing Castro?
-I think constitutional monarchs seem more moderate because they have to be. They are not oppressive dictatorships where people live in fear and are consequently scared to overthrow, as a monarchy they are actually probably under more threat of this institution being disabled if they do not please their citizens. Therefore they are probably more liberal and moderate to satisfy the majority of their citizens and increase their popularity to prevent a forceful abdication.
ReplyDelete-In response to "Is it just that these are mostly Arab countries with small populations and lots of oil wealth, which would have been wealthy under almost any regime?" I agree that it is quite likely that most regimes would take advantage of these resources- they would be stupid and unpopular if they didn't! Looking at it more critically then, you could say none of these countries have significantly increased their countries fortunes. For example Bhutan (who does not come under the classification of a rich Arab nation)- its economic growth could be seen as a mere result of having to relent to modern technology in order to keep up with the rest of the modern world, and therefore the economic growth seen is not necessarily a result of a unique economic initiative by Wangchuck, Jigme Singye.
-Oh and yes I do agree that none of these top 10, and the significant majority of the whole 30 are complete non-democracies!
-As to how these leaders keep their opposition down....I see two different ways:
1. By satisfying the majority of people and being seen as overall a beneficial leader who consequently citizens would not want to overthrow- eg. mainly constitutional monarchs as described above (additionally citizens may resist overthrowing monarchs due to the fact they represent long-standing tradition in their country)
2. By having brute force and systems in place to create a strong element of fear. True, a leaders force cannot put down every opposing person, but they can target those that pose the most threat- only certain people possess the qualities to be leaders and if they were the targets then, even if a mass opposition movement was able to form, unclear leadership (as their leaders are continually ‘disposed of’) and guidance would prevent such a movement from becoming much of a success.
-As to “Why do the armed forces etc. remain loyal to them rather than someone else who might improve the country?” my thoughts are unclear but possibly for mere selfish reasons- they may get “extra benefits” for being in an army and a loyal supporter of the leader, this would make motivation to try change the current status much weaker. Also maybe a viable alternative to the current leader, who would create positive change, may just not be seen. (obviously this is not the case for a number of countries though eg.Zimbabwe)
-Finally in response to “Wouldn't revolutions happen when people are doing worse?” I think that the worse a countries state of tyranny and autocracy the harder it actually is for a revolution to happen. Fear is a very strong force. I think a strong reason why people do not overthrow long-standing, unsuccessful leaders is because inherently people are afraid of conflict and war (that a revolution pretty much guarantees!) particularly as such a situation is likely to worsen their situation for a period of time eg.elevate their poverty and see loved ones be killed.
However that is not to say revolution isn’t possible and should be discouraged- with much time and effort and the right mechanisms behind them, people can successfully revolt to bring much needed change to a disastrous political regime.
(please note: this has been written off the top of my head and in much hurry so I apologise if anything does not make sense of is contradictory!- just throwing out some thoughts and responses to these hard questions which we may never have the full answer too!)
phoebe, you may overestimate the degree to which these "monarchs" represent tradition. Many of the monarchies in question were essentially invented by the British. But monarchies can be just as oppressive as classical dictatorships; the monarchy of the Shah in Iran before the revolution is one example. But you may be right that these monarchies in particular were especially mild, I don't know; I'm just not quite sure that your explanation - that monarchs are more easily overthrown - quite works, though it may!
ReplyDeleteThe question of the loyalty of armed forces is a question that can be addressed with the Bueno de Mesquita et al model in the readings, among others; I was interested to know what you thought.
Haha yes I can see what I mentioned about monarchs is not a very strong argument. Essentially all I wanted to point out is each non-democracy is different so each will be under different threats by opposition and in turn will handle these threats differently. I don't think we can look at certain monarchies (eg. An-Nahayan's) in the same way as we view military dictatorships.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of Bueno de Mesquitas model, I think he has a valid suggestion that loyalty of armed forces or the "winning coalition" is determined by the amount of private benefits a leader generates for them (and I suppose a little public goods too) but also if opposition was created how much risk would be involved in switching alliance. But I also don't think we can lump every dictatorship or authoritarian government into this model for a conclusive answer. Other aspects may have a considerable influence as to why an armed force stays loyal eg. fear, pressure from family or peers. The model also seems to suggest that even if a completely different form of political opposition was to be created, that if they were to have enough incentives diminishing any major risk involved, then a loyal force could be swayed to join the new opposition. However this seems to ignore the fact that most armed forces are still likely to have orginally supported their current leader, having some political beleif and support for them. Unless new opposition is only a small political variant on the current regime, most people would not suddenly up and leave their previous political beleif for a completely new and radically different one.
Anyway thank you for your comments, they have certainly made me think and rethink all of this and helped me to form some opinions of my own.
phoebe, you are right that different kinds of dictatorship have different consequences, and it is an interesting question to see that if, in general, hereditary monarchies are more benign than other kinds. If you are interested in the differences between different kinds of dictatorship, look at Jennifer Gandhi (Political Institutions under Dictatorship - among the reocmmended readings, look in Blackboard) or Geddes (among the readings for the course).
ReplyDelete