"This is one of the many flaws of 'liberal autocracy.' Dictators are not good shepherds, leading their flock Moses-like to the promised land of democracy. When the choice is between the good of the country and continued rule, the autocrat almost always chooses himself. To prove that he is irreplaceable, he must destroy the opportunity to replace him, which means destroying or hobbling independent institutions, undermining the rule of law, pushing the population toward extremism -- in short, doing the opposite of what the mythical 'liberal autocrat' is supposed to do."
Much is riding on the Bush administration's ability to steer its way through this transition in Pakistan. President Bush's claim that Musharaf can be trusted to lead Pakistan toward democracy is not credible. In its better moments, the United States has known when to tell such leaders that their time was up. If the administration cannot muster the courage or skill to replace this eminently replaceable man in the name of Pakistani democracy, all because it fears the alternative, then it had better cease the absurd rhetoric about democracy promotion. It had also better get used to a greater Middle East and Muslim world where there are only two types of regimes: radical Islamists and stubborn dictatorships. That, presumably, is not the legacy Bush wants to bequeath to his successor.
I never understood Kirkpatrick's theory. College professors get tenure by publishing and publishing means finding something new to write about. Publish or perish - even if the result is only talking about talk. Creating models out of systems which become a substitute for reality and then are assumed as reality. The Founder Fathers had a broader but also more apt description of the leaders dangerous to our form of government: despots. Supporting despots of the right only gave comfort to the despots of the left. Who did the Cubans and Nicaraguans and the Iranians have to turn to if we supported their leaders who tyrannized them?
If any good will come from the disaster that has been George W. Bush's presidency, I hope we rethink our entire foreign policy. That we get away from a knee-jerk reactionary style to something that takes a long and sophisticated view of the world and our interests in the world and goes beyond the narrow interests of politicians in the Electoral College. After all, why does the Cuban Embargo exist but to appease the Cuban-American vote in Florida?
Comments for this post
