Tags
Afghanistan, Arab Spring, Bosnia, China, Democracy, Dictatorship, Egypt, Foreign Policy, Iraq, ISIL, Kosovo, Libya, Middle East, Militancy, Politics, Russia, Syria, United States
Saddam Hussein murdered thousands of Iraqi Kurds with poison gas in 1988. “The gas killed children playing in the streets and women on their way to the market. I met with survivors whose lungs were almost destroyed: people who had been dying a painful death for the 15 years since the attack.” But, whatever his sins were, his overthrowing destabilized Iraq, and the effects are now almost evident. The same thing has happened in Libya. In both Iraq and Libya, chaos descended into and anarchy, clearing the way for the rise of the radical forces like the ISIL.
There are many reasons to be thankful by the end of a dictatorship. For one, it may mean that a despot is no longer in a position of power. And there is the hope that democracy could take root in its stead. Some people also believe that anything is better than despotism. But that last belief is incorrect.
There is something worse than dictatorship, worse than the absence of freedom, worse than oppression: civil war and chaos. Many ‘failing states’ show that the alternative to dictatorship isn’t necessarily democracy; all too often, it’s anarchy. States shouldn’t be defined by the polarity between democratic and autocratic states but between stable and non-stable ones.
Rule is order. Many stable and prosperous countries now had experienced an extended period of anarchy. Many countries including China and Russia show it. After the end of socialism, Russians were able to vote in more or less democratic elections and the economy was privatized. But the rule of law did not take hold. Putin’s ascendency to power helped Russia returns from a crumbling state to stability.
It is much easier to topple dictators than to establish democracies. Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo shows it. For years, control in Bosnia was largely in the hands of a Briton while Kosovo is under the UN rule.
Stability has a value in itself. Those who believe it are often seen as skeptics who place little importance in freedom and human rights. But the uncomfortable truth is that dictatorship is often preferable to anarchy. Were people given a choice between a stable dictatorship and a failing or failed state, the dictatorship would often be seen as the lesser evil. And most people believe that a more or less secure livelihood and an ounce of justice are more important than individual freedoms and unassailable democracy.
This helps us understand why people in many countries don’t rebel against their governments because it might worsen the situation.
Political instability triggers the yearning for order, sometimes at any price, and thus often paves the way for extremists. That was true in many places, and still is.
The failed democratization of Iraq and the unsuccessful ‘Arab Spring’ in Syria has fed the rise of Islamic State. In neither of these countries does democracy currently have realistic prospects for success. That is the reason Syria shouldn’t be make unstable.
This kind of argument isn’t particularly attractive, I know. It feels like a selling out of ideals. The argument is also often used to justify doing business with dictators and, even worse, provides dictators with justification for their own policies of oppression. But that doesn’t make it wrong.
There are an increasing number of failed states in the world. According to the ‘Fragile State Index’ assembled by the ‘Fund for Peace’, the number of states receiving a rating of ‘very high alert’ or ‘high alert’ has increased from nine to sixteen since 2006. The spread of democracy and freedom, by contrast, has hardly made any progress. According to ‘Freedom House’, following a significant increase in the number of free countries at the beginning of the 1990s, there has been little change since 1998.
Democracy can only function in an environment where there is at least a minimum of stability. And it can’t necessarily establish this stability itself. In Iraq and Egypt, that process has failed, at least for the time being. It is debatable whether the rudimentary rule of law established in Afghanistan after 13 years of American involvement can survive if the U.S. soldiers left that country.
Even many longing to see the departure of ‘autocrat’ in Russia, China and elsewhere, the alternatives must be seriously examined. And, the next time, if an intervention is considered by the U.S. and supported by its ‘allies’ strewn in the entire globe, whether that means military force, sanctions, or the support of opposition powers, they must consider what will follow the toppling of the dictator. Indeed, that is exactly the argument put up by the U.S. President. He didn’t stop in arguing but proceeded to prove his hypothesis. We’re waiting to see the result.