My Recent Journal submission

Just finished a paper called, "Hitler, Putin and the Rise of Democratic Dictators." Small d I'm sayin'

I have submitted to the John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations Diplomacy Journal for consideration.

Anyone remotely interested and PM and I'll send you a copy...here is the abstract:
“HITLER, PUTIN, AND THE RISE OF DEMOCRATIC DICTATORS”

By Stephen V. Fainer


Submitted for publication in Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations , October 2008.


Abstract:

A disturbing trend in twenty-first century governance is the emergence of democratically elected “dictators” such as Vladimir Putin, Hosni Mubarak, and Robert Mugabe. These rulers have come to power for the most part by peaceful means, through the elective process.

The impact of these individuals both upon their native countries, neighboring states, and the world as a whole is quite significant. They have sought to suppress freedoms within their countries in exchange for economic and security gains, while at the same time meddling in the affairs of nearby sovereign nation-states over which they seek to exercise some level of influence and even control.

This paper examines the reason for the increase and spread of such rulers, the comparisons between contemporary and historical examples, and the impact these actors have had upon the greater world as a whole. It seeks to explain why this is an issue of importance to “true democracies” and why little has been done to stave off the increasing power and influence of their leaders.

I have always been of the opinion that even countries with a democratic tradition tend to eventually elect a tyrant/dictator.

One reason to really study and get good at countering insurgencies is to prevent a dictatorial leader rising within a polity to address a failed counterinsurgency campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossf51

A disturbing trend in twenty-first century governance is the emergence of democratically elected “dictators” such as Vladimir Putin, Hosni Mubarak, and Robert Mugabe. These rulers have come to power for the most part by peaceful means, through the elective process.

---

Mubarak came to power because he was VP at the time of Anwar Sadat's 1981 assassination. In 1987, 1993, and 1999 he was "elected" by a referendum in which he was the sole candidate—hardly a democratic election in any sense of the word. He did allow opposition candidate Ayman Nour to run in the 2005 elections, but they were hardly free and fair, and shortly after the elections Nour was arrested an imprisoned.

By contrast, both Mugabe (in 1980) and Putin (in 2000) were initially elected, even if they both subsequently perverted the electoral process.

RB your intellect impresses me and your avatar scares me.:eek:

My take on this is that these problems arise due to a lack of credible, independent institutions of governance within a state that can act as a counterweight towards totalitarianism that creeps in through the ballot box.

Normally, the nature of one-party domination if left unchecked by either domestic political considerations or international cost, can bloom in states who practise procedural democracy and can leverage on electoral support for legitimacy when competing political parties are unable to compete on a fair playing field.

What intrigues me is how popular acclaim can actually foster the above, and while we're at that topic, if the foundation of democracy is the assent of the people, how would we reconcile an instance of popular acclaim for a benevolent dictatorship?

what would you say regarding the use of the 'get out of jail free card' (aka "terrorism") in order to justify the blatant use of signing statements over and above that envisaged by the founders of the Constitution? That would appear to be along the lines of "totalitarianism that creeps in through the ballot box"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JT Clark

what would you say regarding the use of the 'get out of jail free card' (aka "terrorism") in order to justify the blatant use of signing statements over and above that envisaged by the founders of the Constitution?

---

pushy President trying to gain more executive elbow room in opposition to an equally pushy Congress trying as always to assert itself; that it all gets sorted out reasonably well and that the whole topic has little or nothing to do with small wars, large wars or warfare in general -- and thus is a topic for a political blog.

This is not a political blog.