In Defense of Dictators

Remember when I contemplated writing a defense of brutal dictators? Well, after reading a couple of interesting articles on Zimbabwe in last week’s Economist, I think now is as good a time as any to spill. As you may or may not know, Robert Mugabe (blue tie), who has ruled Zimbabwe for 30 years by deftly blending his brutality and blame shifting with his dazzling ineptitude at governing, was defeated at the polls 2 1/2 years ago by Morgan “buy a vowel” Tsvangirai (yellow tie). In the wake of the election, after some bloody reprisals against Tsvangirai’s supporters, he and Mugabe agreed to a “power sharing” agreement, in which Mugabe retains the power and Tsvangirai gets to do all the sharing.

But this story didn’t end like I expected it to and for the last 2 years I’ve had a little cognitive dissonance up in the old cranium when Zimbabwe comes to mind. I am curious as to exactly what Morgan Tsvangirai is doing on a day to day basis and also why he is still alive. Robert Mugabe may not be the most popular leader in the world, but he has been able to utilize black Zimbabwean resentment toward white Zimbabweans (whose land Mugabe forcefully redistributed to blacks) and toward current western sanctions to maintain enough popular support to supplement the usual thuggish instruments of autocracy: intimidation, forcible detention, torture, killing, etc. I assumed that Tsvangirai must have been surviving by employing the same kind of thuggish tactics in a region of Zimbabwe under his control and by staying away from the regions that Mugabe controls.

I was wrong. In the articles I read, I found out that Tsvangirai actually joins cabinet meetings with Mugabe every Monday, “apparently without rancour.” Though he himself has been imprisoned, “beaten to a pulp,” and had his skull “broken” by Mugabe’s supporters, Tsvangirai now meets with him regularly and has even become somewhat of an apologist for Mugabe’s behavior, refusing to criticize many of his policies. Since Tsvangirai is choosing his words so carefully it is hard to know what his intentions are, but a recent quote hints at his patient strategy, while offering insight on just how difficult it can be to be a dictator, or rather to stop being a dictator. “He’s an old man who wants to let go,” says Tsvangirai. “He’s looking for an exit strategy that restores his legacy in Zimbabwe and the world.”

I think the thing we fail to consider when we criticize brutal dictators is how hard it is to retire. The bigger the target that you have painted on yourself is, the harder it is to find an exit strategy. As many an after-school special can attest, it is easy for little lies to grow into big ones. It is also true that during any leader’s rise to power, it is easy for little moral compromises to grow into big ones. Many (perhaps every) leader who gains political power has had to make deals with numerous devils to do so. The worse you are at actually governing, the more deals you have to make. These deals will often get you what you want in the short run (i.e. power), but you will be paying down the mortgage of deception, conditional friendships, and indignant enemies for the rest of your life.

Consider Mugabe: as a young man he seemed to be a righteous warrior fighting to overthrow the white minority racist rule of Ian Smith. He was a political prisoner for ten years. But as he filled the power vacuum in the wake of Southern Rhodesia’s demise he was forced to battle a Marxist faction of former allies. You can imagine the progression.

1) The desire to overthrow tyranny makes you violent.

2) The desire to replace tyranny with the “right” brand of freedom tempts you to dabble in repression and demagoguery.

3) The desire to give your newly created society a chance to succeed induces you to institutionalize repression (think Gestapo, KGB, Comité de salut public)

4) The desire to avoid reprisals against you and your allies forces you to keep your hands on the levers of power indefinitely.

I’m not going to shed any tears for the plight of poor Robert Mugabe, but I can imagine how easy it might be to get backed into a corner even when you start out as a starry-eyed reformer. Mugabe is probably among the most hideous criminals alive today and justly deserves punishment. I think it is fascinating that Morgan Tsvangirai seems to be offering him a way to avoid that punishment, offering him that elusive exit strategy in exchange for a chance at democracy in Zimbabwe. Based on this week’s news, it appears that Tsvangirai is running out of patience. We can only hope that Mugabe’s moral degeneration (or his senility) hasn’t divested him of the last shred of his former idealism.

Shake Your Money Maker

You don’t have to watch many nature shows before you learn that bees, when they find a good stash of nectar or a sweet spot for a new nest, do a little waggle dance to show their fellow colonists where to find it. If they think the new nest site is exceptionally suitable their dance becomes even more vigorous. But do all bees have the same ideas about what qualifies as prime real estate? How do the other bees know they can trust the one boogieing? What if the liberal bees in the hive are attracted to the idea of hearing every possible iteration of Dark Star and choose a spot on a particular eave where they can do so while occasionally overloading on the wafting aromas from hotboxing hippies in the driveway? Or maybe conservative bees dance a frenzied jig when they find a spot in the cigar scented ventilation duct of the Federalist Society within earshot of the gun club.

But this does seem unlikely. Perhaps culture wars are what separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. But are the culture wars really representative of our culture? If they were, I suppose that would mean that somebody could win them, but the truth is that nobody would want to live in a “liberal” world and nobody would want to live in a “conservative” world. So that means the truth lies somewhere in between them, right? Well I’m not so sure about that either. I think the culture wars have oversimplified things.

All reputable news sources attempt to provide balanced coverage, which means they try to get views from people on multiple sides of every issue. Unfortunately, we usually think it’s a job well done if there are two views, one “conservative” and the other “liberal.” So Hannity has his Colmes and Paul Krugman has his David Brooks. It seems that the media reinforces the notion that our political landscape is all about conservative vs. liberal, Republican vs. Democrat.

I think the media gives us the false (and perhaps self-fulfilling) impression that our society is a political football field where one coach is a donkey and the other is an elephant. We either join a team and play by their rules or we sit and watch the game. There are two ways in which I think this bipolar simplification is wrong-headed.

First, I would argue that to a large degree there aren’t two poles, but one pole. An anarchist, a suicide bomber, and Ralph Nader would all agree that any apparent division between Democrat and Republican is insignificant. A growing number of apathetic voters would probably agree also. They see both parties as being part of the same system, a system with utterly misplaced values. Paramount among those values, predictably, is stability. Neither party has an interest in doing too much tinkering with the system that keeps them in power. It’s like trying to argue with Maradona and Pele that soccer is a dumb sport. Their mutual antipathy for each other will melt away into jubilant friendship as they deftly coordinate a prolonged session of kicking you in the shins. Democrats and Republicans have too many common interests to really be enemies. This is why real campaign finance reform won’t happen. And now that America’s most insane common law rabbit trail has led us to a place where corporations, exercising their God-given rights as people, can fund political candidates to their heart’s content we are not likely to see many politicians elected who would want to change that.

Second, there are certain issues where it is obvious that the truth doesn’t lie in either camp or anywhere in between. For example, Democrats will expend enormous time and energy to make sure people have the right to “die with dignity.” Republicans will expend enormous time and energy to make sure that suicide is not condoned. But when I’m on my deathbed I guarantee you that my phone records will show no last minute calls to the DNC or the RNC for some help on the infinitely more important issue of what’s going to happen when the lights go out.

So when politicians take up their causes, important as they may be, we must recognize that they are partly wrong (there is truth on “both” sides) and that they may not even be addressing the most important issues. The truth does not necessarily lie on a continuum between two lies. Life is much more complicated than that, and so is our country.

So next time you watch Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann shaking their beehinds (sorry, irresistible), pay attention because you are bound to learn something. But don’t be discouraged if you’re not ready to build a hive with either of them...or anywhere in between.