How to Remove a Dictator

Well, we have seen quite graphically how NOT to remove one.  That example occurred in 2003, with the unleashing of "shock and awe" - more shocking and awful than anything else.  Yes, the dictator in question was toppled.  But his country, Iraq, has since become a disaster area, being propped up by foreign military while basic services that used to function still don't, historical treasures of mankind have been looted apace, and bloated contractors have grown even richer with untold millions.  All this and yet eight years later, we still have not been able to put Humpty back together again after pouring billions into the effort.  More than 100,000 Iraqis have paid the ultimate price and hundreds of thousands remain refugees.  Iraq, with a long secular tradition, has now virtually become a Shia theocracy, more similar to Iran than to more open Sunni traditions.   By all reasonable measures, Iraq did not turn out well for the people who have to live there now.  "Shock and awe" simply are not ways to promote democracy and democratic ideals.  They never have been.  Genuine efforts have been made in recent years to improve the situation in Iraq, but the outlook remains dire for the foreseeable future.

More recently, and more encouragingly in both Tunisia and Egypt, we have all witnessed genuinely popular uprisings of, by and for the people in those countries.  Both of those uprisings resulted in the removal of long-term repressive leadership: Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt.    Both removals were accomplished for the most part peaceably, with a minimum of bloodshed and destruction, but with a LOT of determination, perseverance and courage on the part of those who protested. 

Dawn broke today with Mubarak gone from Cairo, having finally acceded to protesters' demands that he step down.  Several sources have photographic depictions of events, such as the slideshow here.  Others, such as Tariq Ali, prefer to express their joy in written form.  He writes:

"A joyous night in Cairo. What bliss to be alive, to be an Egyptian and an Arab. In Tahrir Square they're chanting, 'Egypt is free' and 'We won!'"

But Ali also mentions some sobering considerations, especially problems with Mubarak's successor, and wonders about the true extent, scope and nature of the change.

"Omar Suleiman, an old western favourite, was selected as vice-president by Washington, endorsed by the EU, to supervise an "orderly transition". Suleiman was always viewed by the people as a brutal and corrupt torturer, a man who not only gives orders, but participates in the process. A WikiLeaks document had a former US ambassador praising him for not being 'squeamish'. The new vice president had warned the protesting crowds last Tuesday that if they did not demobilise themselves voluntarily, the army was standing by: a coup might be the only option left. It was, but against the dictator they had backed for 30 years. It was the only way to stabilise the country. There could be no return to 'normality'."

Notable scholar Juan Cole posits three major scenarios for post-Mubarak Egypt: 

1. The old elite of officers and businessmen around Mubarak survives him to remain more or less in power, and further protests over time are repressed.

2. There are new presidential and parliamentary elections, but the Mubarak cronies take advantage of their experience in organizing and the wealth they have gained from their crony status to dominate these institutions, while the officer corps remains a power behind the scenes.

3. There is a genuine social and political revolution, wherein substantial amounts of wealth and power are redistributed to new actors.

What will happen now will depend largely on whichever of the three scenarios comes to pass.  While either of the first two scenarios is likely to occur because of the power and control still remaining in the hands of Mubarak allies (viz. Suleiman in power now, for example), those of us who truly believe in democracy and freedom should be rooting for the last.