After much progress in the 1990s, marked by the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the evolution of Latin America, democracy now seems to be in decline. There were also, however, new advances that occurred recently. More precisely, in Morocco, Tunisia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
In contrast, some democratic countries have also become dictatorships, such as Venezuela.
Others have gone from one dictator to another. This is the case in some republics of the former Soviet Union, such as Turkmenistan or Belarus. It is also the case of Iran, which transitioned from the dictatorship of the shah to that of the mullahs. This is also the case in China and Vietnam. In some of these countries, power has shifted from father to son, one being more bloodthirsty than the other; like North Korea, Syria, Togo, the Democratic Republic of Congo and in many other countries.
Many others, and it appears that these countries may be the most numerous, have entered a grey zone in which the dictatorship evolved more or less quickly towards a democracy. We can cite Russia, certain republics of Central Asia, Myanmar, Cuba, Kenya and Malaysia as examples. In contrast, others have entered the grey zone in which democracy slid towards a dictatorship, like in the Philippines, Indonesia, Hungary, Turkey and even India.
We should also point out and make the distinction between dictatorships that harm only their own people, which are for the most part the majority, and those whose influence outside of their borders is deleterious, as is the case with the dictatorships in Iran, North Korea and some other countries.
From a global standpoint, in recent months, the cursor of the planet has rather moved towards less democracy.
History tells us that dictatorships collapse in three cases: if the people are no longer afraid of being shot at and invade the palaces and dwellings of the powerful, as was the case in Romania; or if those in power decide not to fire on their own people anymore, as was the case in the Soviet Union; or finally, if an external force from the outside helps local resistance movements end the reign of the tyrant.
An embargo that is enforced, without any other action, is not enough to achieve such change. It can even, sometimes, reinforce the attachment of a people around its leaders, even if they are appalling; there are only few cases where isolation has caused so much hunger in a population that it turned against those in power. The Americans, who live with the illusion that it is their policy that led to the collapse of communism, (while it was in fact Gorbachev’s decision to stop firing at his people, and to move towards democracy) continue to think that it is enough to isolate a nation in order to cause its regime to collapse. The example of Cuba should have shown that this is not the case. And I fear that the Americans’ setback in North Korea shares is along the same lines.
More and more rare are the cases in which the people who rose up against their dictators and managed to make them leave accomplished this feat by the sole force of their courage. Though, it may be what will happen in Kinshasa.
So, what should we do? Should we not meddle in the affairs of other countries? After all, what gives us the right to want to impose democracy somewhere? And perhaps we should be content with the task of simply stopping dictators who harm beyond their borders.
How? Should we negotiate with them? The pitiful example of the so-called negotiation between the Americans and North Korea (which continues to make great strides towards nuclear weapons) shows that it is usually useless.
In some cases, a pre-emptive war against a regime whose actions harm more than just its people, would save many dead: if Hitler had been attacked before he invaded the Ruhr and rebuilt his army, tens of millions of lives would have probably been spared in Europe. Naturally, there were no plausible justification for the attack on Iraq and the one on Libya, a pre-emptive attack must be weighed carefully as a last resort.
j@attali.com