Michael
Nov 22nd 2008, 01:42 PM
This is a brief and pretty good article on the various aging dictatorships (all of them important US allies) around the Middle East and their (poor) prospects for smooth successions.
The Costs of Relying on Aging Dictators
by Caroline Sevier
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2008, pp. 13-22
...
But even as U.S. policy once again organizes around the idea that strongmen bring stability, Washington will soon face the downside of such a strategy: Aging rulers die; replacement leaders are frequently weak, and transitions can be volatile. Instability is a looming threat in four Western-allied dictatorships that many in Washington currently embrace as bulwarks of stability: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Oman.
The leaders of these countries have ruled for a combined total of ninety-nine years. Together, they have presided over significant transformations. But, in recent years, each has struggled to enact economic reforms to accommodate growing populations, to contain Islamism, and to encourage their respective societies to reconcile tradition with constructive political and economic pursuits. Amidst dangerous internal and external challenges, and in the absence of transparent mechanisms of succession that enjoy public approval, the inevitable moment of succession risks provoking crises that will challenge new leaders to the fullest.
Source (http://www.meforum.org/article/1923)
This is another area that could pose a significant US foreign policy challenge for the incoming Obama Administration. Any one of these four nations could become seriously destablized in the near future with the death of their aging dictator.
And this issue just opens the door to the whole question of continued US support for so many such dictatorships around the globe.
It is important to note that when it comes to democracy, it appears that it only really works well if there is a bourgeois majority in place. Unfortunately, this is only the case in the western block of nations. For the majority of the nation-states on the planet, the bourgeoise (middle class) are not in a majority position and thus, democracy (of the western-style representative model) doesn't function well in those places. They often have little more than a 'sham democracy' (by western standards) and are ultimately ruled by a dictatorship.
And following with the relative success the 'South Korean model', I'm not adverse to some regime support policies that may benefit a 'benevolent-dictatorship' style regime - if that regime is directed towards the development of an actual democratic state. I firmly believe that a market economy must be in place and fully functional before a democratic-style governmental system can function in our modern society. A culture of 'inherent competition' needs to exist in order to supply the lifeblood of the 'inherent competition' that democracy needs to flourish.
Indeed, the 'South Korean model' mirrors the democracy development pattern that describes most western nation-states as well. In all cases, the western nation-states have established market economies prior to adopting systems of actual democratic governance.
So the question here is, how should the US (and/or EU) foreign policy approach this issue of supporting unsavory dictatorships?
Certainly the four nations mentioned in the article (Egypt, Saudi, Tunisian & Oman) are relevant - but I think that Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia are strong potential candidates for dictatorships in the near future as well.
The Costs of Relying on Aging Dictators
by Caroline Sevier
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2008, pp. 13-22
...
But even as U.S. policy once again organizes around the idea that strongmen bring stability, Washington will soon face the downside of such a strategy: Aging rulers die; replacement leaders are frequently weak, and transitions can be volatile. Instability is a looming threat in four Western-allied dictatorships that many in Washington currently embrace as bulwarks of stability: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Oman.
The leaders of these countries have ruled for a combined total of ninety-nine years. Together, they have presided over significant transformations. But, in recent years, each has struggled to enact economic reforms to accommodate growing populations, to contain Islamism, and to encourage their respective societies to reconcile tradition with constructive political and economic pursuits. Amidst dangerous internal and external challenges, and in the absence of transparent mechanisms of succession that enjoy public approval, the inevitable moment of succession risks provoking crises that will challenge new leaders to the fullest.
Source (http://www.meforum.org/article/1923)
This is another area that could pose a significant US foreign policy challenge for the incoming Obama Administration. Any one of these four nations could become seriously destablized in the near future with the death of their aging dictator.
And this issue just opens the door to the whole question of continued US support for so many such dictatorships around the globe.
It is important to note that when it comes to democracy, it appears that it only really works well if there is a bourgeois majority in place. Unfortunately, this is only the case in the western block of nations. For the majority of the nation-states on the planet, the bourgeoise (middle class) are not in a majority position and thus, democracy (of the western-style representative model) doesn't function well in those places. They often have little more than a 'sham democracy' (by western standards) and are ultimately ruled by a dictatorship.
And following with the relative success the 'South Korean model', I'm not adverse to some regime support policies that may benefit a 'benevolent-dictatorship' style regime - if that regime is directed towards the development of an actual democratic state. I firmly believe that a market economy must be in place and fully functional before a democratic-style governmental system can function in our modern society. A culture of 'inherent competition' needs to exist in order to supply the lifeblood of the 'inherent competition' that democracy needs to flourish.
Indeed, the 'South Korean model' mirrors the democracy development pattern that describes most western nation-states as well. In all cases, the western nation-states have established market economies prior to adopting systems of actual democratic governance.
So the question here is, how should the US (and/or EU) foreign policy approach this issue of supporting unsavory dictatorships?
Certainly the four nations mentioned in the article (Egypt, Saudi, Tunisian & Oman) are relevant - but I think that Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia are strong potential candidates for dictatorships in the near future as well.