Was Egypt, Iraq, Libya etc better off living under a dictator?

BuilderPlumber · 03-09-2013 12:24AM

The answer is yes. From talking to Iranian friends for example, they don't like a lot of what goes on in their country but they want to reform the system rather than overthrow it as the latter would cause a worse situation. So, with the election of a moderate president in Iran, it could well go down the reform road and avoid all the chaos we see elsewhere.

Now, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and others were better off when they were ruled by dictators. Ideally, a situation like happened in Eastern Europe where nasty dictators were replaced by a more democratic government in velvet revolutions would be ideal but no such systems exist in countries like Syria or Egypt (only Iran has that culture in it to reform itself from within). So, it seems to be a choice then for Syria, Egypt or Iraq between a Saddam or Assad type dictator who gives people some social freedoms and a violent, far more repressive Taliban-styled regime.

BuilderPlumber · 03-09-2013 12:37AM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

True, remember Yugoslavia? Tito was a hardline dictator who held the country together but after he died the place fell apart and saw the worst conflict in Europe since WW2.

Very true. Tito ran a good show overall in Yugoslavia. He was more pragmatic and moderate than his then Eastern bloc neighbours and he opened up the country for tourism and he also was not afraid to oppose the USSR if he disagreed with them on issues.

Communist Yugoslavia worked. People's standard of living went up, the economy was the envy of its neighbours and age old rivalries within its borders were eroded. Tito did not place one nationality over another and encouraged people to consider themselves Yugoslav and not Serb, Croat, etc.

Ironically, Tito had plans to give Albania Kosovo but at the time Kosovo wanted to remain within the borders of Tito's moderate and prosperous Yugoslavia and not join the hardline, isolationist and economically depressed Enver Hoxha lead Albania (then seen as the North Korea of Europe: North Korea being Albania's only ally in the end, after it alienated both USSR and China as well as others).

When Tito died, what he had achieved lasted for around 10 years. But 1989 saw the kicking out of most Eastern bloc regimes mostly in a peaceful manner (exception being Romania). Yugoslavia did not see regime change as a lot of the reforms being introduced elsewhere had already been done by Tito and his successors.

But then Milosevic rose up through the ruling communist parties and used communism as a way to get to the top. When he reached the top, he removed his communist mask and set up a Serbian nationalist dictatorship. Many other parts of Yugoslavia wanted to leave and then the wars and chaos started. Milosevic's regime was the first fascist one to lead a European country since 1945 and his reliance on gangsters like Arkan further fuelled how low this once great country had sunk. Milosevic destroyed all of what Tito had achieved and implemented the very policies Tito stamped out ruthlessly throughout his life: petty nationalism.

Means Of Escape · 11-09-2013 07:18PM

old_aussie wrote: »

Yes, They need to be ruled by an "Iron Fist" otherwise they descend into tribal anarchy.

As they have done!

Agreed
All this horsesh1t about the triumph over a dictator signified nothing
The country is in complete meltdown
Oil production is strangled by rebels who have seized the ports and are selling crude oil on the black market
Noone seems to give a toss as to what mess was left behind.
It has plunged Libya back 200 years.

Femme_Fatale · 11-09-2013 09:13PM

old_aussie wrote: »

Yes, They need to be ruled by an "Iron Fist" otherwise they descend into tribal anarchy.

As they have done!

Who's "they"? It's precisely because they have been ruled by an iron fist that things descend into a mess due to them being unsure how to carry on. It would be applicable to any group living under an iron fist, not just muslims. It isn't just muslims living in the countries mentioned anyway.

Gilbert Grape wrote: »

And who say's they were living under a dictator??Brainwashing seems to be working so far on those who think that..

Ah well I guess they just rebelled for no reason eh?

Piliger wrote: »

Ah you're spoiling all the America haters fun with facts ! They can only operate with small words and small concepts. It's al about oil. That's nice and easy for them to repeat and repeat and repeat.

Yeh, I'm always suspicious of the "It's about oil, nothing else" claim. I'm sure that's a part of it, but I'd be hesitant to believe it's that alone.

Clandestine wrote: »

I've often wondered how a benevolent dictator would impact a country. Sometimes I feel that form of leadership would be better than a democracy.

So long as you don't have to live under it?

Karl Stein · 11-09-2013 09:47PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yeh, I'm always suspicious of the "It's about oil, nothing else" claim. I'm sure that's a part of it, but I'd be hesitant to believe it's that alone.

Mostly about the oil I'd say.

1944: U.S. State Department memo refers to Middle Eastern oil as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."

1979: U.S. President Jimmy Carter designates the Persian Gulf a vital U.S. interest and declares the U.S. will go to war to ensure the flow of oil.

July 1990: April Glaspie, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, meets with Saddam Hussein, who threatens military action against Kuwait for overproducing its oil quota, slant drilling for oil in Iraqi territory, and encroaching on Iraqi territory--seriously harming war weakened Iraq. Glaspie replies, "We have no opinion on the Arab- Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

August 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait. The U.S. seizes the moment to assert its hegemony in the post-Soviet world and strengthen its grip on the Persian Gulf: the U.S. condemns Iraq, rejects a diplomatic settlement, imposes sanctions, and prepares for an all-out military assault on Iraq.

March 1992: U.S. Defense Department drafts new, post-Soviet "Defense Planning Guidance" paper stating, "In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

informationclearinghouse.info

He who controls the spice controls the universe.

Wibbs · 11-09-2013 09:59PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Who's "they"? It's precisely because they have been ruled by an iron fist that things descend into a mess due to them being unsure how to carry on. It would be applicable to any group living under an iron fist, not just muslims. It isn't just muslims living in the countries mentioned anyway.

True, however history and culture can play it's part too. The Muslim world - and indeed the faith itself backs this up - for much of it's history lived under the rule the caliphate. In it's purest religious form this was a democratic process, but over time that part got dropped, so for so long the culture accepted the idea of a strong kingly man ordained by god at its head. A monarchy basically. Western style democracy is a new thing. Hell in it's current from it's quite the new thing in the west, but we've come to get used to it over the last two centuries, so even if we get a dictator, he's more a blip on the background noise of democracy so it's easier for the west to get back to democracy after he's overthrown. Many nations and cultures haven't had the west's experience and it's a tad rich of us to expect they're going to do in a year, what took us two centuries to dial into.

Means Of Escape · 10-10-2013 07:27AM

No one in control at the moment
Prime Minister kidnapped
Peace and tranquility continues

dimal · 10-10-2013 07:38AM

jank wrote: »

In some ways this is a valid question. Some regions are not ready for democracy and they can only free themselves.

My colleagues from Portugal and Romania once mentioned that they were better off under their dictators.

Jonny7 · 10-10-2013 07:44AM

Riddle101 wrote: »

Libya under Gadaffi has been an enemy of the United States since he first came to power. When the Civil War started, the US seized the opportunity to take out one of their opponents. Not saying it was great thing to do, but if the US was that worried about Oil they would have invaded them years ago. It's not like Libya and US have ever been friends you know. They struck when they saw an opportunity.

Gadaffi came in from the cold in approx 2005, becoming very chummy with the US and UK.

Jonny7 · 10-10-2013 07:56AM

Election results released early in Azerbaijan a day before polling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/09/oops-azerbaijan-released-election-results-before-voting-had-even-started/

There are different types of dictatorship, but they generally have a common theme - a promise of stability at the price of freedom.

A society can function remarkably well under authoritarian fear - it should, we've been honing it for hundreds, thousands of years.. whereas choosing a leader is relatively new to us.

Democracy is custom designed to avoid the above.. in fact it was born out of the harsh lessons of the above.

Autocracy also typically promises another feature - generally a lot of pain and bloodshed in it's removal as we are currently seeing around the world. Are these countries better of? in the short term often not, because of either the conflict or the vacuum of power, justice, stability - in the long term, absolutely - if it holds.

bnt · 10-10-2013 09:20AM

OP is hardly the first to ask this question: just search for keywords such as "Egypt not ready for democracy?".

Example, from Reuters:

The Mursi government may have been elected, but there are other requirements for a democracy. A democratic government has to guarantee minority rights. It has to accept the opposition as legitimate. It has to be willing to abide by the rules. And the truest test of a democracy: The government has to give up power if it is defeated at the polls.

The Mursi government failed all those tests except the last one. That’s because it was only in power for a year and got removed by the military before it could stand for re-election. In that one year, however, Mursi asserted near-unlimited power over the country. He appointed Islamic radicals to key positions. He rammed through a new constitution that enshrined the principles of Islamic law. He arrested opponents and allowed attacks on religious minorities. He neglected the failing economy. He angered the military by calling for Egyptian intervention in Ethiopia and Syria.

The best way I know of describing democracy goes back to Aristotle, over 2,300 years ago. Democracy works best when it represents a middle class majority. The richest don't care, and the poorest have nothing to lose, so democracy can't be aimed at either group. In Egypt, Mursi didn't get this, preferring to favour his own Islamist faction.

General General · 10-10-2013 09:40AM

What did the dictators ever do for us?

gobnaitolunacy · 10-10-2013 10:09AM

Answer is yes, like it or not.
Either you have one strong arm man who is able to keep everyone in check, or warring factions none of which are strong enough to defeat each other.

force eleven · 10-10-2013 10:12AM

Mugabe still rules, he's nearly 90. Zimbabwe was never of geo-political interest for Uncle Sam, so they left it alone. Same with Burma/Myanmar. But if it suits them, they'll intervene. Nothing to do with 'humanitarian reasons', this needs to be understood always. Arab countries have oil. And there is the proximity of Israel. The 2 biggest reasons the US ever gets involved.

Afghanistan, all about the opium, and who controls it.

Fratton Fred · 10-10-2013 10:28AM

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Answer is yes, like it or not.
Either you have one strong arm man who is able to keep everyone in check, or warring factions none of which are strong enough to defeat each other.

Which is exactly what happened in Ireland in 1922. Should Ireland not have sought independence?

Jonny7 · 10-10-2013 10:29AM

force eleven wrote: »

Mugabe still rules, he's nearly 90. Zimbabwe was never of geo-political interest for Uncle Sam, so they left it alone. Same with Burma/Myanmar. But if it suits them, they'll intervene. Nothing to do with 'humanitarian reasons', this needs to be understood always. Arab countries have oil. And there is the proximity of Israel. The 2 biggest reasons the US ever gets involved.

Afghanistan, all about the opium, and who controls it.

Zimbabwe has plenty of natural resources, gold, copper, platinum. Likewise so does Burma.

40 odd nations are not in Afghanistan because of the drugs trade, or the non-existent pipelines or the rare-earth materials

DeanAustin · 10-10-2013 10:31AM

OSI wrote: »

The oil argument never really holds much water. The cost of a multi year war in a region most of the way across the world is far greater than you could hope to reclaim in oil. The US is already producing 87% of the oil it uses and is likely to be oil independent within the next 10 years and likely a net exporter of the stuff. But yeah, I'm sure they're spending trillions on the army every year and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to make up that 13% deficit.

Always wondered this. The "oil" argument always seems simplistic and cliched to me so it's interesting to see some stats that illustrate this.

I genuinely believe that Bush and his administration thought they were doing the right thing in invading Iraq and Afghanistan but were just very naive in what they thought would happen after they had removed Saddam and The Taliban respectively. The caricature of Bush, for all his faults and unsuitability to the role of President, doesn't sit comfortably with me.

Was Egypt, Iraq, Libya etc better off living under a dictator?

Comments