So my first question is, how do dictatorships end in the 21st century? And second, what happens after that breakdown?
For example, there used to be the Muammar Gaddafi regime in Libya and after an international intervention with the US at it's head, they finally killed him and took down the political system in Libya "to free the people". Just take a look at what B. Obama said back in 2011.
Before that intervention there was a great discussion about a possible resolution to "free Libya from it's dictator, to end the civil war between Muammar Gaddafi and the rebels and actually help the people". The death of civilians was something the different states were prepared to take in order to achieve the chance for Libya to be a democratic state some day. But was it legitimate? Germany for example did not vote for the resolution and abstained. And what happen to Libya after 4 years now? ISIS? Where do we stand and what do we learn from the past?
I guess we'll discuss the breakdown or ending of non-democratic states this or next weak. But maybe we can just remember Kant saying, that every state has to deal with his inner "illnesses" first, before outsiders try to end it.
Maximilian, dictatorships end in all kinds of ways. Some gradually become more democratic (e.g., Ghana); others are overthrown by foreign forces (e.g., the Nazi regime in Germany); others succumb to popular protest (e.g., the Marcos regime in the Philippines); others die in coups (the Portuguese "Estado Novo" in 1974) where the new regime decides to democratize; others end when the dictator dies (e.g., the Franco regime in Spain in 1975). The problem is less about how dictatorships end than about how they might become something better; dictatorships are not always very stable, but they are often replaced by other non-democratic regimes.
ReplyDeleteThere's an article among the readings (last week of the term?) that discusses why foreign intervention rarely helps to democratize a regime - you might want to take a look.
Okay,
ReplyDeleteso I understand that in some cases a foreign intervention didn't help or even made things worse. And that the military or (different) regional armed forces / organizations play a major role, when it comes down to the breakdown of an authoritarian regime. And shaping a new democratic state is very challenging. So I checked for more info and found some interesting articles.
If someone is interested in what is going on in Libya, this might help.
Why is Libya lawless?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24472322
Cautious reception for EU security role in Libya
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cautious-reception-for-eu-security-role-in-libya-1426529881
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRestoration of the Libyan monarchy (which was toppled by Gaddafi) has been a popular topic as to finding a solution to the current division in Libya. Prior to Gaddafi's revolution, King Idris commanded the respect of the various Libyan tribes which now fracture the country and the Foreign Minister today is an ardent and prominent supporter of the assumption of Crown Prince Mohammed El Senussi. The tri-colour flag used both today by the General National Congress (in pseudo-exile) and during the Libyan Civil War as a symbol of resistance is the flag of the Kingdom, and just last year the government (at least, the one internationally recognised) rehabilited the royal family - restoring their citizenship and allowing the restoration of the royal properties which had been confiscated by Gaddafi. This, to me, illustrates that the Libyan government, if not the Libyan people at large, consider Gaddafi's coup as both illegal and unjust, and, certainly, Arab monarchies have demonstrably provided greater stability than their dictatorial counterparts (monarchies in general, I would attest). My question would be on whether there is genuine reason to believe that a restoration would not provide a position of stability, or whether the institution of monarchy has so far fallen from grace that it is not taken seriously as a political form (whether justly or not).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/04/libya-foreign-minister-interview-return-monarchy.html
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4251/libya-monarchy#_ftn1
http://www.aawsat.net/2014/03/article55329719/libya-rehabilitates-royal-family-overthrown-by-gaddafi
JFD, monarchical restorations - in the sense of the restoration of monarchs with genuine powers, and not merely ceremonial roles - are exceedingly rare in the post WWII era. (I look at some of the data on modern monarchies here). And there is little reason to believe that monarchy would command today the sort of respect it did in the past; in fact, according to Michael Herb (who wrote one of the best books on monarchy in the middle East in English - we'll read parts of it next week), King Idris' monarchy was pretty discredited by the time of Gaddafi's coup. (Gaddafi was really popular when he overthrew the monarchy!)
DeleteI think you're assuming too much about my intentions. I make no presumption about the extent of any restoration - indeed, a restoration of genuine power to a monarch would not occur unless political attitudes were dramatically overturned. A ceremonial monarch can still serve as a symbol of unity and cohesion, however - and this is the type of role for which officials such as the Foreign Minister are advocating. Libya, and international parties, are struggling to find common ground between the GNC, the islamists that control Tripoli, and the various Libyan tribes, and, as the FM suggests, perhaps that common ground can be found in the monarchy, which, at least under Idris, already commanded the interests of those tribes. I was merely lamenting on how it seems as though the (re-)introduction of a monarch is not treated as a serious political tool with which to bring stability (I certainly didn't mean to suggest that it would be the best tool; Libya doesn't have the history to validate the argument on institutional grounds).
DeleteAnd certainly, Idris' government had become unpopular leading up to Gaddafi's coup - I didn't mean to suggest that Idris' monarchy was a stellar representation of the institution (it is, unfortunately, the one example of a Libyan monarch, however). A combination of his centralisation of wealth and his close ties to the UK and the US simply ignited the resentment of growing pan-Arabs and Libyan nationalist, and these factors were fruit ripe for the picking by someone, if not Gaddafi. However, these circumstances should not be used to discredit the restoration of a monarchy in Libya - they certainly discourage a restoration of the sort of absolute and arbitrary monarchy that Idris embodied, but monarchy, like any other system of government, can be shaped to fit contemporary needs.
Sorry I misunderstood, JFD - certainly a constitutional monarch can be a unifying force. And at least some people in Libya seem to like the idea; unfortunately those with the guns seem not to care too much for it.
DeleteI think, in general, that second question of "what happens after the breakdown?" is extremely difficult, and provides us states that fancy ourselves defenders of human rights and freedoms a bit of a quandary. The eternal issue that these post-dictatorship Arab nations face in initiating democratization is the fact that leaping into something with no prior experience tends not to be immediately gratifying, particularly when a group have high expectations. When people have had such a perceived active role in bringing down an establishment they are going to want to take an active role in building a new establishment – and with the Arab Spring that is a lot of people. The fact is that those who have committed so much of their lives to fighting for democracy since late 2010 are almost guaranteed to feel a bit of disappointment at A. the gradual process, democracies with integrity take time. And B. it is still a world with some confinements, the scenery stays the same.
ReplyDeleteIt’s an issue we saw in Egypt, with the coup against their democratically elected president Mohammed Morsi. In that case either the public expected too much, or Morsi was simply a new dictator, or the art of protest was so ingrained into the Egyptian culture and recent identity that they felt somewhat lost without it. In Libya, the state of flux and “what next?” that followed the fall of Gaddafi made the country fragile and open to manipulation and now ISIS and other militias have a dangerous foothold, and can use the intervention as a means to further their mantra of hatred. This all without mentioning the turmoil in Iraq after the removal Saddam Hussein. If there is anything to be said for dictators it is that they often provide a level of structure that the post-dictatorship state cannot promise.
Here’s a good article on this subject, focussing especially on the impact of foreign intervention in bringing down these dictators:
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/year-four-arab-spring-proved-everyone-wrong
Good points Liam, and thanks for the link. Some Arab nations have done better than others though - Tunisia is often cited as a case where democratization and the rule of law are making genuine progress (despite very recent events). So yes, it's harder to construct a functioning and accountable state than it is to push a dictator out, but it can be done.
Delete