Democracy, they say, is government of the people, by the people and for the people. In a stable democracy, like the US, Britain and elsewhere where leaders are freely elected and accountable to the people, transition and change is often smooth and peaceful.
At times though, the West often sacrificed democracy on the altar of despotism and dictatorship, particularly in developing nations where leaders are autocratic and rule with iron fist. In such environment, subservient citizens or it may seem, move about quietly with angers burning underneath. However, what depots failed to realize is that people cannot be held hostage for long. All it requires for a people to explore is a little incident as the Tunisian Street Seller who vented his anger against the system by setting himself ablaze. An action that gave rise to the now popularly dubbed “Arab Spring” that has seen leaders fall, including at least one losing his life, in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and others recording daily street protest, and yet still other engulfed in a full blown civil war as in Syria.
The tragedy of these developments is these despotic regimes exude the aura of stability and economic prosperity on the backs of a captive population by the few, made up of a single ruling family. These despotic regimes and its make believe sense of stability is overtly or pretentiously supported by stable and truly functional democratic nations either for trade reasons or some other vested interests that serve the end of Western democracy. During such times, these Western democracies turn a blind eye to the human right abuses and excesses of these despotic regimes. Given the years of control over national resources, these regimes become so entrenched that peaceful protest or descent is not enough to effect regime change, except through violence. Most tragic is the fact that during the long period of autocratic rule, institutions are not built thereby leading to collapse of the state in the absence of the Autocrat, as what comes after their fall is struggle for power amongst different groups, who though were united to oust the despot but now contend with one another for control of state power. Such is the case in Libya, Egypt, Iraq and will definite be the case with Syria.
Amid the disastrous consequences of autocratic rule, the world is served better if nations take steps to forestall the rise of autocratic rule before it takes hold. That means applying all necessary sanctions and pressures on leaders who are acting to take their countries in directions that only violence may be required to oust them. Thus, the state becomes fractious following the ousting of the despot as there are no democratic institutions built to stand the change the citizens craved.
One should never forget, no matter how stable a nation is, as long that stability is under an autocratic regime it is bound to be shattered notwithstanding the long years of stability. The stability is superficial and sits on a time bomb. A bomb which when it explores leaves thousands of lives lost and a broken nation. Liberia, Seirra Leone and Ivory Coast; all in West Africa once walked this false road of stability. The sadness of these tragedies is when the volcano of violent change finally erupts, there is nowhere to see the backers of these despots. Hoseni Mobarak of Egypt, Samuel Doe of Liberia and Sadam Hussein of Iraq are just a few of the leaders that experienced first-hand the betrayer of western backers.
The question that Western Democracies should be pondering as Libya, Syria, Egypt and others burn after years of stability, what should be the choice of governance, democracy or autocracy?
At times it seems tempting to choose stability amid autocratic rule to chaos at aim for democracy.