Opinion The fate of freedom
Gaddafis tenure is a reminder of how much wishful thinking there has been about dictators.
-
Share -
-
-
When the Soviet Union collapsed,there was no dearth of explanations for the transformation: the Soviet Union had fallen behind economically; rhetorical escalation by the West had finally paid off; the idea of liberty had finally triumphed. Whatever the merit of these explanations,there was a big,proximate factor at play: the ruling classes in the Soviet Union had simply lost faith in their right to rule; and with it dissipated all the will to coerce. The regime certainly had the instruments of coercion to prolong its hold on power. We can rationalise why it chose not to do so. But there is something intangible about the circumstances under which ruling formations lose the will to coerce. This loss of a will to power cannot always be easily explained. But it is often central to making revolutions possible.
There is a big gap between the image of revolutions and their reality. At one level,revolutions represent this exhilarating moment,when people claim their dignity and freedom. They seem to be able to take their destiny in their own hands. On the other hand,the conditions under which revolutions succeed are rare indeed. As Theda Skocpol argued many years ago,most revolutions succeed not because of the force of people power,but because there is prior state collapse often due to external pressures. In places where the states apparatus of coercion is not in crisis,or where the rulers have not lost the will to hang on,revolutions turn out to be a distant gleam. This,among other things,is one reason why analogies between China and Egypt are so far-fetched. The bloody battlefields of Libya are a reminder of how impotent freedom can be when faced with a dogged ruler who has not lost his will to fight destructively. Freedom,alas,depends as much on an act of grace,as it depends on the will to claim it.
This is what makes the policy options in Libya so difficult. There are many important differences between the different states,like Libya,Bahrain,Saudi Arabia,etc,that are now seen to be vulnerable to mass protest. For one thing,the character and organisation of the protests are different. But it is not clear that their determination to hold on to power is getting any weaker. It is too speculative to second-guess the psychologies that drive these rulers. What sustains Muammar Gaddafi,and perhaps to a lesser degree,other unpalatable regimes in the region,is the fact that rulers are more able to engage in a nefarious psychological substitution: they think that they or their family are the country. The weight of history in Egypt would not have allowed such a megalomaniacal identification of self and nation.
But all of these regimes are uncanny in the way they have played on ideological investments in the West. Gaddafis extraordinary feat of convincing the bright lights of liberalism from Anthony Giddens to Joseph Nye,that he was a kind of Libyan Gorbachev,is a testament to the corruptibility of the defenders of freedom. Many sophisticated commentators in the US like Robert Kaplan see assorted sultanates in the Middle East,like Oman,as potential harbingers of an ordered liberty. In short,it is still astonishing how much defenders of liberty give aid and succour to dictators. Doing so on grounds of realpolitik at least has a certain unembarrassed integrity to it. But supporting them on the wishful thinking that a leopard will change its spots is a remarkable delusion. Gaddafis tenure is a reminder of how much wishful thinking there has been about dictators. But it also shows how impotent freedom is,even among its friends.
Admittedly,there is no easy solution to challenges like Libya. Enforcing a no-fly zone at this point is too little too late; and the Germans are right in thinking that a no-fly zone is pointless without a willingness to escalate. Both in Bosnia and Iraq,no-fly zones were a prelude to direct intervention. Commentators like Fareed Zakaria have argued for a Contra-style support for rebels. Whether it is already too late for this is an open question. But escalating the civil war carries huge risks which no one is prepared to shoulder. It is difficult to judge whether some form of tactical support to the rebels will help. And it is striking how the rebels have not yet managed to carve out a space in the ideological imagination of those who favour freedom; they still appear to be an inchoate mass. Gaddafi figured,quite rightly,that there is very little appetite for a full-scale armed intervention.
So he could operate with the assumption that defenders of freedom had few instruments by which to impose their writ. They bark more than they could bite.
So we have political confusion and hesitation with a train of ironies in its wake. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was for a no-fly zone in Libya,while Europe and the rest of the world dithered. China and India agree to refer Gaddafi to an International Criminal Court whose jurisdiction they do not recognise. Saudi Arabia is quick off the block in intervening in the state of Bahrain without informing its closest ally,the United States. The reach of American power is great. But its ability to control outcomes is very limited. Amidst this confusion in the international system,the fate of freedom is uncertain.
It is very likely that in the coming days,the emphasis will be more on being seen to be doing something rather than actually doing something. There is a real danger that a moment of liberation for the region will turn out to send the wrong message to dictators. If you have the tenaciousness to hold on,no one can come after you. The demand and upsurge for overthrowing existing regimes in this assortment of countries seems very genuine. There has always been more of a vibrant,even if underground,civil society in the Middle East than our conceit has allowed us to admit. That momentum may eventually force change. But despite the euphoria of Egypt,civil society everywhere is running into the obdurate reality of state power. And when that state power has no inhibitions,freedom seems so helpless. Where will that sense of the inadvisability of dictators fighting to the finish come from? Libya is a reminder that it is easier to call for freedom than to have a sensible strategy to secure it.
The writer is president,Centre for Policy Research,Delhi express@expressindia.com
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
