Dictators ain't what they used to be

Naming the months of the year after your children and forcing the people to adopt them. Re-wording the Lord's Prayer so you are the one people pray to. Dressing up as Napoleon for your coronation having declared your country no longer a republic but an empire. Delivering six hour-long speeches live on national television. Reportedly eating your political opponents and keeping their heads in a freezer. These are eccentrics who managed to wheedle their way to the top seat in their country, either by subterfuge, by election or by being in the right place at the right time. There really are or were people who did those things I mentioned earlier, and they are: Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan, François "Papa Doc" Duvalier of Haiti, Jean-Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic (or Central African Empire, as he renamed it), Fidel Castro of Cuba and Idi Amin of Uganda respectively. The late Colonel Gaddafi was a complete nutter; John Simpson, the BBC correspondent, in this book "Strange People, Questionable Places", said he had terrible flatulence and his mad cackling laugh and obtuse retorts each time he asked a question made a farce out of any interviews.

There are many others too. Kim Il-Sung of North Korea, who made his people perform daily T'ai Chi-style exercises at dawn in the name of the nation, while large speakers blared patriotic military songs and human speakers screamed mantras praising their Great Leader. The famously paranoid Enver Hoxha of Albania, who made it an offence for men to wear beards so they could be easily identified in criminal cases and built up such an enormous amount of one-man military bunkers (750,000, for 3 million people!) to surprise any invader. The abominable Pol Pot of Cambodia, who made people return to the countryside in a mass forced labour scheme, who wanted to dismantle urban settlements and who sanctioned the killing of 2.1 million people, about a fifth of the population of the country.

All these individuals are now no more, either forced into exile, put on trial and executed, committed suicide or died of old age. The fact that these dictators remained in office unchallenged for such a long period of time is testament to the fear they instilled in people as high up as their own right-hand men. Either that, or the population had obviously been suffering from a mass Stockholm Syndrome, brought about by the fear of change. Another thing that strikes me is that not all of them look the type to commit such heinous crimes against humanity. Look at Bashar al Assad of Syria - he doesn't look like the type of person to order brutal crackdowns on his own people. He doesn't even look like the type of person who'd throw a strop in a domestic. Enver Hoxha seemed more like the type of person who'd knock on your door offering a free clock with every Reader's Digest purchase above £100.

The only supreme rulers still left of any note are Kim Jong-Il in North Korea, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and the opulent rulers of the Arabian peninsula. It can only be a matter of time before they get their comeuppance, but I think most of them will die of old age.

There are some oddballs about though: the absolute monarch of Swaziland, Mswati III, although not a brutal man, is pretty active on the marriage front, with 14 wives, although not as active as his father, Sobhuza II, who had produced 210 children from 70 marriages and had a reported 1000 grandchildren by his death.

The dictators around today though are pretty bland operators. Aleksandr Lukashenko of Belarus is no more than a civil servant with special powers. Hu Jintao of China is the mouthpiece of a much larger party apparatus and even Omar al Bashir keeps himself to himself, despite the Darfur humanitarian disaster.

Dictators who wish to survive in the 21st century have wised up to the notion that they need to go unnoticed or build up a huge civil, military and political staff below them to take hits when they occur so they are pretty much untouchable. That way they can remain in power for decades. Stalin realised this, and he is the undisputed pinup poster boy of the dictators. Although we all know how grisly his deeds were, how utterly intolerable a system he threw up in the twenties and thirties, he saw off all his opponents but his hands were always spotlessly clean. And look at how he died: old age. The European Council operates in a similar manner, I have noted - it lets national governments or the European Commission take the blame for utter scandals like the Lisbon Treaty or ignoring national referendums.

No article on dictatorships would be complete without mentioning the most famous one of them all, Adolf Hitler. He was quite a showboater, with his spectacular demonstrations of nationalism through symbolism and Sturm und Drang. He galvanised the people by playing on the affrontery he felt by the Versailles Treaty and building up their sense of destiny through grands projets like the construction of huge buildings of culture, the hijacking or politicising of the 1936 Olympic Games and the plan to remodel Berlin as the centre of the civilised world. He almost got away with it, except for one tiny flaw in his otherwise impenetrable Teutonic armour: he was utterly mad. He never knew when to stop. He should have consolidated what he had by 1938 before he went into other territory. But fortunately for us all, he was as mad as a bag of spiders.

So hats off to northern Africa for shedding its recent dictatorial overcoats, and stepping into the double-breasted suit of democracy. The legitimacy of their newly founded political systems will become apparent in the coming months ahead. I have high hopes for Libya, if it can quieten the tribal leaders - it stands a very good chance of being a model Islamic democracy, an example for the Islamic countries further to the east to emulate, an oil-rich beacon of stability and a new tourist destination for history lovers and sunseekers alike. The Libyans I have met in my life were all very polite, educated, civilised and well-read. The members of the NTC also seem quite serious and have a particular kind of peace about them. For that reason, I think, Libya can make it where others' attempts at democracy have failed.

The world in 2050 - part I, the EU vs China

What will the world be like in 40 years' time? Most historians agree with the Churchillian view, that to look at the future you need to look at the past. By then though, all of that future will have been the past. But maybe we can look ten to twenty years ahead, which might give us clues.

We live, undoubtedly, in the freest and most enlightened society on Earth. And I hope this remains so in the future. But our greatest problem is the rise of the Far East and especially China, with its ability to manoeuvre in the world without asking 27 sovereign countries for permission. China is ahead in Europe's former colonial backyard simply because it can. Democracy is being defeated, even embarrassingly, by China's decisive nature and guilt-free ability to do what is best for China.

If the EU is asked to help in the building of a bridge across a predator-infested river in Africa so children can get to the school on the other side, it will firstly send an EU delegation to assess the impact to nature, the human inhabitants and the economy. It will take its findings back to Brussels, where committees in the European Parliament will sit and discuss matters before this project finally appears on the to-do list, maybe a year, maybe three years later. It is then transferred to the respective European Commission Directorate General for planning and execution. By this time, China will have sent its own delegate, who simply shows up in the village, says "where do you want it?" and calls up some builders to get the job done. In return neither for money, nor for nothing, but for the minerals in the ground around the village.

China is, without regard for ethics or morals, simply acting like the world's rich uncle in order to gain a certain kudos in parts of the world where, when the time comes, their United Nations vote could be crucial. On top of this, it is acting like a drug pusher, in that it makes promises to return with more fixes for the locals. But fixes are just that. Temporary. And no amount of posturing will hide the simple fact that its infrastructure is crumbling because of the temporariness of the structures China builds, and the shoddy workmanship it turns blind eyes to will mean that when the Europeans come back to that village in Africa, they should take a good look at the Chinese bridge, check for subsidance and crumbling, pull it down and build its own.

China is developing a "quick fix" economy for all. You're in a foreign city for a week and you packed one too few shirts? Pop down to the local department store and pick a Chinese one up for about 7€. You won't use it much more after, because the Chinese produce shirts that are too short, where the lowest button is about your navel area and it barely fits into your trousers. There was an article in a UK paper a few years ago about Christmas coming in on a mile-long freight ship from China, that we were now all subject to buying things Chinese. How much of it remains after two years is anyone's guess, but the simple matter is that China will never outdo the status of "Workshop of the World" simply because it relies on you to throw their stuff away and buy another one from the same maker. Workshop of the World implies that your material is so trustworthy you would not buy from anyone else, even if theirs was cheaper. That is why "Made in Germany" or "Made in England" will always have an extra advantage. It is the difference between an antique table of solid oak and a plastic-surfaced, metal-legged screw-down table with a loose fitting. The former you find in a top European restaurant, the latter in a Chinese takeaway.

What does the future hold, therefore, for China? I think it has learned from the Gorbachev break-up of the Soviet Union and does not want this to happen to it. The Chinese are busy promoting real estate in outer-lying cities in China to attract Han Chinese there, further cementing China's grip on its recent acquisitions, especially Tibet, Yunnan, Qinghai and Xinjiang. It is rapidly consolidating its status as polluter-in-chief, and will soon overtake the USA as largest in everything. But the one thing it does not have on its side is affection in the hearts of other countries in the world and this cannot change while China is still seen as a sinister and work-obsessed political entity.

All Europe has to do to gain the momentum is stay the same, because soon its fusty, clunking administrative machinery with its protracted overseas development projects will be seen as a breath of fresh air in comparison to the soulless efficiency, false smiles and black business suits accompanying the Chinese wherever they go.
______________________________________________________
The simple answer to the question, "where will China be in 2050?" is that it could go one of two ways.
Either:
It could sink in a treacherous sea of dissatisfaction in its inability to produce proper material and act in an ethical and trustworthy manner, causing buyers, investors and bankers to pull out, and a nasty rise in nationalistic indignation at feeling rejected by the rest of the world. This could have the knock-on effect of galvanising the Chinese against the rest of the world or causing the split-up of its various autonomous regions, over which it has extended its wide-reaching tentacles, from the main body. By the time 2050 comes, China could be half the size in territory, and a quarter of the size in stature.
Or:
It could start the slow process towards allowing human emotion and dignity to be given space alongside work and dump its cosying up to other mean-spirited dictatorships (Zimbabwe, Myanmar) around the world. It could admit to its mistakes of allowing mass profiteering and racketeering to take a leading role in its colonisation of Africa, and start clearing up its own mess, instead of leaving that to the EU and the USA and their allies. It could stop stealing ideas from the EU and the USA and adapting them for its own purposes. It could clean up its fuel burning, whether associated with its addiction to coal or its petrol-guzzling cars. It would take its place as a model reformed nation, a shining beacon to all those nasty little dictatorships in central Asia and Africa.

But, unfortunately, neither is likely to happen. China is likely to get more and more competitive, causing other area of the world to realise the secret to winning this particularly nasty war is to become just as flexible and decisive as China. All I can see is a slow erosion of workers' rights in the EU and USA and a rise in the amount of Chinese-led initiatives. And whilst the EU and the USA are busy spending literally billions keeping terrorists at bay in central Asia and eastern Africa, China's approach is rather than to put sanctions on those countries, or even invade them, costing a lot of money and even more in lives, China just hangs a few diamond-encrusted carrots and wait until they bite.

Should the EU and USA start doing this? It is hard to say, but for all the ethical politics the EU and USA spread is being quite simply negated, even cancelled out, by China's simple interventions. It is the equivalent of a drug pusher looking for a few gophers. Find the bad boys in the school playground ready to earn a bit of cash for some thrills, and he has an inexhaustible supply of mercenaries. I think, for all the good it has been doing in recent years, the EU is currently losing the battle to keep itself afloat, even asking China for assistance in some cases.

I personally think the EU will slowly turn away from social democracy and become big in government edicts, bigger in industrial labour, smaller in intellectual workpower, smaller in military intervention. It needs to, in order to stay in the game. But it will have to go through several enormous periods of civil unrest to achieve it. China, on the other hand, is the one who can afford to stay the same.