17 August 2017
Tyranny
The reason to hang on.
By John Watson
With Mugabe at 93, Jacob Zuma at 75, and the constitution of Rwanda being altered so that President Kagame can remain in power until 2034, it is worth reflecting on why it is that people cling to power long after their main political contribution has been made. It isn’t of course unique to Africa. General Franco ruled Spain until his death in his 80s and, indeed, in rather different circumstances, our own Sir Winston Churchill passed his 80th anniversary as Prime Minister too.
Circumstances differ, but in the case of states which do not function as open democracies it has become the fashion to refer to the risk of prosecution for old crimes (in the rougher parts of the world it would be hard to hang on to power for long without one or two of these), the desire for continued kleptocracy and the wish to continue to enjoy the benefits and status which append to a head of state. Well, maybe. Sometimes these things are factors: sometimes they are not. What is absolutely clear, however, is that many leaders believe that their retention of power is essential to the public interest, so, if we want to understand why they stay, it is necessary to have a look at the basis for that belief.
Let us suppose that you are the ruler of a state. It may or may not purport to be a democracy but there is a long history of struggle between warring factions. Perhaps the issue is a tribal one. Perhaps it is religious – most European countries went through extensive religious wars in the 16th century, and the Middle East is rife with them now. Anyway, you have been blessed with an iron hand and are tough enough to bring the conflict under control, stop the fighting and boost your citizens’ standard of living. The poor are fed, the children go to school.
That doesn’t mean that the issues have gone away. They simmer beneath the surface, but as long as you stay in charge, violence will be kept at bay. The trouble is that you are getting older and, perhaps as a result of your dominance, there is no one around who is equipped to keep the lid on the national pot. A decent lot, the younger generation, but, to be honest, a tad ineffective. If your hand comes off the tiller, the result will be a disaster for the citizens at large and your work will be undone. It is a grim prospect but not an unusual one. Marshall Tito must have faced it when he worried about the future of Yugoslavia. President Kagame will probably have to face it in due course. Will the attempts by the Hutu to wipe out his own tribe the Tutsis be revived when his personal authority (and supporting military expertise) leave the stage?
The problem is obvious enough but not alas the solution. What on earth do you do? In a perfect world you would have trained up a successor but that is not easy. Successful seconds in command normally have skills which complement rather than imitate those of the leader, so they will not normally have the qualifications required for the top job. Maybe there is someone else, but if so you are very lucky. Another approach is to try to put structures in place which, by creating checks and balances, will perpetuate your solutions. Well, you can certainly try but you only have to look at the way in which Turkey is dismantling Ataturk’s reforms to see how structures collapse when they are faced with real political pressure. Institutions will do so much but no more. In many cases there is no obvious way forward.
In practice it primarily comes to timing. Which to do? Go early and hope that you will be able to influence what follows, or hang on to the end and give your way of government the longest possible time to put down roots? You never know. Something may turn up. From a personal point of view the second approach has an obvious advantage. If it all goes wrong you will not be there to be sucked into the maelstrom. It is one thing to say “apres moi the deluge”; it is another to reflect that you will be out there without an umbrella. There are only so many things they can do to a corpse. One can certainly see the temptation to hang on.
The second reason for hanging on is that it is what people do instinctively. It is only human to think that you are more important than you are and that those around you will make a mess of it. If you don’t believe that, speak to those who are wondering whether to pass their businesses on to the next generation.
“Good people, of course. In fact I myself selected them. Still, they are used to my guiding hand and I’m not sure that they are quite ready to take over full responsibility yet. Why not a couple of years more so that I can be sure they are ready?” And then what? After a couple of years it still looks much the same so maybe another little interval is needed. That is just human nature, but imagine how it is reinforced by the pressures of autocratic politics when you are surrounded by sycophants telling you how essential you are.
From the point of view of policymakers, the judgements are even harder. Sometimes the dictator’s concerns turn out to be justified. The removal of Colonel Gaddafi and, before that, of Saddam Hussein, unleashed pressures of a hugely destructive nature. Had the results been forseen, the decisions made at the time might have been very different.
So before we talk patronisingly about the efforts of dictators to extend their rule, before we try to reduce it to issues of kleptocracy and guilt, we need to reflect on each case. Just what is being suppressed? How quickly would it emerge if the suppressant was removed? If we do so we will find that the issue is not always one of how to prise the incumbent out of office but that often we and they have a shared concern as to what will follow.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet
