Tunisia and the myth of the ‘benevolent dictator’

Home

Perspective

Vantage

Wednesday, 19 January 2011

Justin D. Martin
The Jerusalem Post

Last year I published essays from Tunisia, Kuwait and Singapore, screaming about the human rights abuses in each, particularly their muzzling of free expression. After writing each of these commentaries, I received feedback along these lines: “Since these countries are, to varying degrees, economic success stories, does it really matter that political speech is roped off? Perhaps there is something ungovernable about these societies, and they need a ruler with a ceaseless grip.”

For years, Tunisia was perceived by many observers as a nation ruled by a truncheon, but which functioned just fine because it was somehow benevolent.

Rotting, putrid nonsense. Dictatorships are, by definition, self-serving and nonbenevolent; some dictatorships are just noisier than others. I spent 2005-2006 in Jordan – also a country that is an economic success story and deemed innocuous. Without significant natural resources, and with a massive refugee population, Jordan has nonetheless demonstrated impressive economic growth over the past 15 years, and boasts a large and growing middle class. Jordan, though, is a police state if ever there was one, and its secret security force is a dark, cold institution. There is no benevolence when the Jordanian mukhabarat whisks a political dissident away before dawn to extract information.

Anyone who argues that a would-be group of rowdy people cannot govern themselves need only look to India. It is one of the loudest, most bustling, frenetic places on the planet, and also the world’s most populous democracy. And anyone who claims Islam is incompatible with democracy should recall that India has hundreds of millions of Muslim democrats.

Tunisia is the most recent and vivid example of the myth of benevolent autocracy. Despotism is what’s untenable; self-governance is not. For decades, the world humored Tunisia’s overlords, and because the country is small, it’s been relatively quiet. It demonstrated impressive economic growth, and it’s a damn fine place to visit. My wife and I were in Tunisia in November for 10 days, and struggle to think of a country we find more delightful. Tunisia’s beauty took my breath away, and I grew up on the Gulf coast of Florida.

Among the millions of pictures of Tunisia’s now-hiding despot is the slogan of a government PR campaign: “Tunisia: A country that works.”

Tunisia is one of the most prosperous states among the non-oil-rich nations in North Africa and the Middle East. But even dictatorships that seem to work do not work forever. Not when a swelling middle class demands more influence over its own political future. Not in an age when webizens get a digital taste of the freedoms in countries that actually do work. As far as free speech and political rights are concerned, Tunisia has for years been one of the most rotten places on the planet.

Singapore, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and other economically functional dictatorships, be warned: You’re not benevolent and your people know it, even if the world ignores your quiet brutality.

Americans and Europeans, of all people, should recognize the canard of the benevolent dictator, as it was the debunking of this myth that formed modern democracies in the West. Britain’s King George III viewed himself as a benevolent dictator in the late 1700s. “There’s economic progress in the colonies,” George no doubt observed. “What more do these brigands want?”

The writer teaches journalism at The American University in Cairo, and is a columnist for Columbia Journalism Review. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Share this article:

Comments (5)

Wed 19 Jan 2011 9:31 AM | Tan Tai Wei

However "benevolent", a dictatorship is never benevolent longterm (and LKY takes pride on his longterm planning strategy).

With the vast powers (and pay) he has concentrated on himself and those about him (remember Devan Nair quoting him about how he controlled every sector of the place, and could make JBJ "beg on his knees"), imagine the dangers he would put Singapore should things go wrong.

Even during his direct rule, things had gone wrong. Teh Chiang Wan, before Teh two other ministers whose names I can't recall (one of whom went to four years jail), the many MPs, even minister-of-state Peter Chen, who, in Lee's own words, stayed only a term and then were quietly removed, and, from Lee's viewpoint, even Devan Nair.

Somewhere along the line, mistakes like such wrongful appointments will be made, if not deliberately then otherwise ("every thing that can go wrong, will" in the long run).

Frightening, with the powers Lee has over the years given himself handed over!

Wed 19 Jan 2011 1:56 PM | quantum - “Singapore: A country that works.”

“Tunisia: A country that works.”

“There’s economic progress in the colonies,” George no doubt observed. “What more do these brigands want?”

Thu 20 Jan 2011 11:59 AM | Tan Tai Wei

Let me illustrate the point I made above.

LKY has said that should a "freak election" occur, "the army would have to move in".

Well, even within his party, a freak handover of powers can occur. If it does, goodness gracious, the army too has been handed over!

Thu 20 Jan 2011 12:37 PM | quantum - Army moves in!

"the army would have to move in"

Move in to do what?

Thu 20 Jan 2011 4:42 PM | freedomT

Move in to protect LKY ass and his family from being proven as traitor of Singapore. Rememeber he helped the Japanese while the Malays Sultans were fighting the Japanese with their own lives.