How to Beat A Dictator

Paul Collier’s "thought experiment" ("The Dictator’s Handbook," May/June 2009) is a useful reminder that autocrats are not passive and immutable players, but are capable of strategic thinking and adapting to changing circumstances. In the aftermath of the third wave of democratization, which peaked in the early 1990s, they were forced to develop new strategies for survival. Not surprisingly, many succeeded in doing so, but they might soon find their methods outdated.

The "color revolutions" in Georgia and Ukraine were a wake-up call to many autocrats, as was the sweeping pledge in U.S. President George W. Bush’s second inaugural address to support "democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal
of ending tyranny in our world." One result was a concerted backlash against pro-democracy movements intended to weaken ngos and cut off their access to foreign support.

The move to preempt efforts by opposition political and civil-society groups to use elections to mobilize support has largely succeeded in forestalling democratic breakthroughs, but the global economic crisis offers a new challenge to dictators everywhere. Lacking an electoral mandate, their legitimacy has rested largely on their ability to deliver economic goods. That will become more difficult to do in the current period, and widespread discontent may produce a new consensus for change in countries such as Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.

The phenomenon of autocratic adaptation through the control of elections is largely limited to so-called hybrid regimes that combine elections and authoritarianism. Such regimes are inherently unstable for the reason Abraham Lincoln identified before the United States’ own Civil War: "A house divided against itself cannot stand" and eventually will have to become "all one thing or the other." That drama will continue to play out in many countries, and the United States should quietly continue to support those who are fighting for freedom.

—Carl Gershman
President
National Endowment for Democracy
Washington, D.C.

Paul Collier replies:

Yes, we should indeed "quietly" support people struggling for the proper conduct of elections, but too often the cards are heavily stacked against them. Their only weapon, street protest, requires great courage and has a patchy record. The power of protest needs to be supplemented by something less demanding of ordinary citizens and more likely to be effective. That is why, in Wars, Guns, and Votes, I suggest a way in which the only force that presidents really fear—their own armies—can be harnessed as a force for democracy. Today’s unthinkable will become tomorrow’s solution.