More on Despots
The problem with despots is that they litter history and not only history; they are often in our very homes. That is why it is such a difficult and extensive subject.
By batsman
I’d like to thank all those who troubled themselves to comment on my last write-up even if some did think it was a waste of time and then writing a rather long thesis just to prove it was a waste of time.
The problem with despots is that they litter history and not only history; they are often in our very homes. That is why it is such a difficult and extensive subject.
Quite apart from the negative emotions associated with the word despot (and most of the commentators are against despots), I would like to offer debate in greater depth as it is a subject that affects our everyday lives.
I would venture that quite a few people are of the opinion that Lee Kuan Yew is a despot. Yet he guided Singapore to levels of wealth and prosperity not seen anywhere else in 3rd world countries. Similarly quite a few think that Suharto was a despot, but how was his despotism compared to the despotism of Soekarno who he replaced (for one thing, hundreds of thousands were killed in the early years of Suharto’s rise to power, while nothing of the sort happened under Soekarno – heck, even the Indonesian communists enjoyed a fair measure of freedom under Soekarno).
The stranger thing is why did the US support Suharto’s regime even when Suharto looked like a despot who caused hundreds of thousands to be killed and jailed many thousands more without trial for decades? The US after all, claims to be the champion of freedom and democracy where despots should have no place in their paradise of liberty.
Stranger than this still, is why do we love despotic figures we call parents (maybe even wives and husbands)?
I think the answer lies in the fact that both despots and followers exist within all of us. While we are in the 9-5 mode, we are followers suffering under a despot who controls our economic well being and shows favouritism in unabashed and crude ways. However once we are back home, while some of us continue to suffer despotic spouses, many turn into despots ourselves.
This is very human thing. We voluntarily become followers to those who hold power and who we respect or are forced to respect (fear), while we take the stage as leaders (despots) if we are surrounded by weaklings and ineffectuals.
It is also a very human thing to rebel against corruption, incompetence of bosses, injustice and favouritism, even if it is against abusive parents or spouses who we love very much.
The problem is when the abuse and incompetence becomes chronic and permanent and has no hope of being corrected. Instead of real correction, we are told fairy tales of family unity, fairness and equality while the imcompetence and corruption goes on unabated.
On a national scale, the same things can happen. Politicians jockey for power and sing nauseating songs of unity while the family marbles are firmly held by cronies, corrupt civil servants, police and judiciary. There are no real institutional reforms. There is no real hope for correction. Everything is up to the whims and fancies of the despot – whether he wishes to sing nauseating songs of unity or detain protestors without trial. There are no institutional checks and balances while we are told not to bother with these trifles since we are under a grave economic crisis and there is no time to bother with things which can only cause national disunity and become threats against national security.
On an international scale, we see much the same things. Much of what the western media portray is just images of wealth, control and power that exist in rich countries. This is very seductive. We are told if we toe the line and get rid of our despots we can have the chance to enjoy all of these things.
In the meantime, even in the rich countries, the gap between rich and poor has risen from about 26 times to about 77 times between the fifties and the new millenium. The figure of 77 times may be a little bent because of the current economic crises (maybe even because of Madox), but an extra 100 million has been added to the tally of 1 billion people suffering chronic hunger. The seductive dream of wealth and comfort drifts even farther away except for the few rich local compradors who act on behalf of their masters.
We are told that our own despots are responsible for the poverty we suffer and the strangledhold of sanctions and trade embargoes. If our children die of famine or lack of medicines, it is because our despots will not toe the line and open the country for other people to despoil other than themselves. We are told that our own despots are incompetent and corrupt while the global despots can bring wealth and security.
In the meantime, natural resources are running out and being used at a rate that is quite unsustainable to make goods for those who can still afford to buy. Is there hope for correction? Are the institutions that are being controlled by the world’s rich and powerful sustainable anymore or are they ripe for change? Is the system breaking down and being sustained only by military force, local despots and seductive propaganda?
It seems that while history is littered with despots, the current climate is no different. We have family despots, national despots, regional despots and international despots (no doubt with all the attendant cronies). The family despot may be the one most “in-our-face” and one that we have to live with in our daily lives, but I wonder which one will ultimately affect our lives most consequentially?
