We saw the end of Colonel Gaddafi and now there's the gradual crumbling of Bashir Al-Assad's regime in Syria. A few years earlier there was the end of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Have you noticed one thing that these leaders have or had in common? The lust for power.
Outside a few of the western-style democracies, there is only one thing that "leaders" understand - power. They will do anything at all to gain and hold on to power. It was the same for Hitler, for Stalin, and it is the same in China and North Korea. Here is how they get and hold on to power:
If power can be attained by fascism, we'll be fascists. If power can be attained by communism, we'll be communists. If it can be attained by a "popular uprising", then we'll have a "popular uprising". And if it can be attained by "democracy" and "an election", then we'll have "an election" and ensure that it has the right result. (This has the added advantage of pleasing the gullible West.)
Power is so important to these "leaders" that they have an extreme and irrational reaction to anything which looks like a challenge to this power. So, any peaceful demonstration must be brutally crushed. This is what happened in Libya and is happening in Syria. It happened in Soviet satellite states (Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia) and in Tiananmen Square, in Burma and in Cambodia. At the same time, the "leader" suffers from the massive self-deception that "the people love me!" when in fact the people shout their praises out of nothing but fear.
There is a good reason for this. We do not truly learn (and so change our behaviour) by getting information. We learn by our actions. Look at the ending of George Orwell's classic novel 1984 which exposes the philosophy of Stalinist Russia. "Big Brother" represents Stalin, and the hero Winston Smith has gone through all kinds of mental and physical torture because he dared to question the regime. He has been forced to submit to the leadership and finally to act like a good citizen.
"He
gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind
of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless
misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented
tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was
all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He
loved Big Brother." (Last paragraph
of “1984” by George Orwell)
Now we know why these regimes demand huge parades and cheering crowds. This makes the people love their leaders! Sixty years ago, many Russians truly loved the monstrous Stalin.
We can also understand why Russia and China still steadfastly refuse to act against the brutal Assad regime in Syria. To do so would be to betray the philosophy of absolute centralised power. They could no more act against Assad than western governments could choose to suppress a popular uprising against a dictatorial regime.
Outside of the West, the people too do not understand anything except power. They certainly do not understand democracy, because they have never lived under it. An "election" in Iraq or Afghanistan does not mean that they have chosen their representatives or a president who will carry out their wishes. It just means that they have chosen the people who will have absolute power over them.
Meanwhile, Western governments naively assume that a "successful election" means that the country in question is now "a democracy" and is just the same as any western country. Now we can send our troops in to "defend democracy", when actually there is no democracy. It's an unknown concept. All that they know is family, tribal and religious loyalty.
Democracy has many drawbacks (see "Two Cheers for Democracy" by E. M. Forster, available as a free download), but it's the best method of secular government that we've come up with so far. However, democracy will die if we don't defend it by concentrating on responsibilities rather than on "rights". I don't want to be around when that happens, but it won't be too long now, the way things are going.
Am I optimistic or pessimistic? Actually, optimistic, but probably not in the way that you think.
Roger
