“Portales himself was assassinated
in 1837 by troops he thought loyal”
This one line in the multiple pages of the reading ‘Chile: Origins, consolidation, and breakdown
of a democratic regime’ instantly brought me back to the lectures that were
about loyalty before the break. It was interesting to find that he was
assassinated by troops – who could be seen as ‘outsiders’ – were the ones who
assassinated him in the end as opposed to the insiders. This is interesting
because during the lecture on loyalty, it was said that insiders were the ones
that were more likely to threaten the dictators not the outsiders (though of
course, that isn't to say that it still could not happen). This brings us back to
the whole Dictator’s Dilemma idea – The more
they praise you, the less you can trust them. One can say that Portales was
under the impression that the troops that assassinated him were loyal to him
because they praised him when they weren't.
From what I gathered from this, is
that people that aren't dictators, or even in politics, can experience the
dictator’s dilemma. For instance, Friend A gets praised by Friend B on a
regular basis however friend B secretly hates friend A. Does this mean that even ordinary, everyday people cannot trust one another? If they (and Dictators) don’t
get praised at all, does this mean that the ones they should trust are the ones
that don’t praise them?
Can we trust anyone?
Thoughts?
Alex - troops, who typically obey the orders of higher level commanders, may be better seen as insiders. After all, they control crucial resources, namely violence.
ReplyDeleteBut in response to your more general question: most "successful" dictators have been famously paranoid, trusting no one, not even their close family members. The problem is that the more power you accumulate, the more profit may be in taking it away from you; and the more power you accumulate, the less you can trust what other people say.
Ordinary people seem to be able to trust others in many circumstances, though, without much trouble. The key difference seems to be the kind of relationship - power relationships seem fraught with problems of trust.
Interesting comment at the end of your post, Alex. My mum always used to tell me that "what susie says of sally says more about susie then it does about sally", which I guess can translate into politics too. What the people are saying about you is irrelevant compared to how they're saying it.
ReplyDeleteOf course, in a 'true democracy' like New Zealand, politicians receive equal praise and criticism depending on you talk to. John Key has as many haters as he does supporters - which means that democracy is working. Government is making changes through compromise based on the critiques and praises they recieve from the people.
Therefore, it's quite hard to comprehend a society where politicians get praised, no matter what they do. Even if they instagate a policy which puts everyone in a worse situation than they were before, a congratulations is always in order. This is evidence that democracy isn't working, as politics is abot compromise and conflict. How can any honest policy-maker be expected to make changes if they receive no advice or opinion either way.
Obviously, this is easier said than done: if people under dictatoral rule stood their ground and said, "actually, thats not such a great idea" to their governments, perhaps we would see change in these states. When overthrowing the regime is too hard, critiquing the government peacefully could change an authoritarian dictator into a more considerate one? Because they will get to graph where they stand on popularity ratings?
Or maybe I'm delusional and idealistic. It's worth a shot though!
Sammie - when you say "When overthrowing the regime is too hard, critiquing the government peacefully could change an authoritarian dictator into a more considerate one?" I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind. But note the Syrian uprising started non-violently, and the government replied with force; governments do often quash "peaceful criticism" with violence, because even peaceful criticism can be a focus for organizing against the government.
DeleteGood point abut politics being about compromise and conflict!
Delete"When overthrowing the regime is too hard, critiquing the government peacefully could change an authoritarian dictator into a more considerate one?" ...or the authoritarian dictator could always just shoot them. Not advocating that, but it would probably be easier, especially in circumstances where the rule is highly consolidated and the authoritarian dictator has the power to do so.
DeleteI like the Suzie and Sally quote :P
DeleteThe word 'Praise' sounds a lot to me like sucking up. In which case its incredibly rare that somebody would suck up to another without having their own agenda, I imagine in both political and social spheres.
I think you would struggle to argue that dictators are less inclined to trust than ordinary people. I believe ordinary people are very blasé about trusting others with fairly irrelevant things. Yet still very particular about trusting people with more important things. Politicians simply have a greater amount of important things than the ordinary person does.