Tomas Iturregui
Dictatorships have always been a
form of government that has received much criticism, especially from capitalist
countries such as the United States. Some Dictatorships remain stable for many
decades due to strength of their militaries, while many come to an end very quickly.
My aim is to explain why I think dictatorships often lead to weak or failed
states.
Dictatorships often are very unstable
from the start. The state is run by a single ruler or small group of people, whose
word is final and caries absolute sovereignty. Dictators never give the
citizens any vote or input for anything. Thus, there are bound to be large
disagreements between the public and dictator. When a dictator comes to power,
they are usually just looking to keep and retain as much power as possible.
They aren’t usually very focused on the greater good of the state. This can
lead to many problems such as human rights abuse, civil wars, lack of economic
growth and many more. Those problems can signify and provide evidence that a state
is becoming weak or failed.
One example of a failed state with a
dictatorship is Syria. Bashar al-Assad is in charge of the state. During the
Arab Spring he ordered his troops to kill any anti-government rebels. He has
even used bombs and chemical weapons on his own people. This has lead to a full
out civil war, with refuges currently fleeing to Europe. Another example is
Libya, a country run by Muammar Gaddafi for forty-two years. He ran a police
state, which allowed no private press or political parties. He did not provide
fair human rights for his citizens, while his primary concern being wealth from
oil. A civil war broke out and Gaddafi was killed a few years later. Now in his
wake, Libya has technically been declared a democracy but faces many problems
and is viewed by the world as a failed state.
Of course there can be dictatorships
that don’t necessarily lead to a failed state. North Korea could be seen as one
as it’s stable with a solid economy despite not much being known about it. But
when all the dictatorships are looked at over the past century or so, it can be
seen that many lead to problems such as civil wars which leads to a failed
state.
Tomas, I am curious, how much authoritarian power is necessary for a dictatorship to avoid overthrow? I noticed that in most of your examples, opposition to dictatorships correlated to the spread of information technology. I believe tat the Arab Spring, which stirred opposition against oppressive governments throughout the Arab world, would not have been possible without the social media technology of the most recent decade. Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have been recognized even by scholars as pivotal in the spread of political ideas and organizing group action in the middle east. Within North Korea, use of communicative electronics is forbidden. Government discovery of portable DVD players or cell phones can be punishable by death. I believe that we have seen less of a resistance in North Korea because of these restrictions on social media. Without social media, organizing widespread dissent is very difficult under an authoritarian regime.
ReplyDeleteThis is the point where I would say that humanitarian problems, civil wars, and economic growth don't necessarily mean that a state is failed. I'm thinking mainly of Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt. These three countries are all authoritarian in their governments and not weak or failed. Saudi has terrible humanitarian problems, Jordan has a pretty weak economy, and Egypt has had both of these problems. So I don't agree that authoritarian/dictatorships cause these problems.
ReplyDelete