I found the revelations of former Syrian Vice President Khaddam instructive in that they offered a glimpse of the intricate power play within the hidden workings of a dictatorship.
A number of observations seem pertinent in this context:
1. A dictatorship need not necessarily induce regression, social and economic, but freedoms and democracy are mightier inspirers of progress.
2. A dictatorship need not necessarily foster injustice, but it definitely lacks the scruples to eschew the temptation of persecuting its enemies.
3. A dictatorship need not necessarily breed corruption, but its stalwart supporters need to be bribed with fiefdoms in business and government.
4. A dictatorship need not necessarily be totalitarian, but its paranoia will make the slippage toward totalitarianism almost inevitable.
5. A dictatorship may opt for an ostensibly secular State and society, but it will not hesitate to unearth sectarian fault lines if its interests and/or survival demand it.
6. A dictatorship, however, wouldn’t be one if it were tolerant to any degree. Intolerance is indeed the hallmark of dictatorship, its defining attribute, its historical essence.
Contrary to the image of power and fortitude he strives to project, a dictator perceives his seat of authority to be vulnerable, rickety and in constant need of reinforcement. To tolerate dissent or criticism, or what’s worse opposition, would serve him a one-two punch. It would encourage more dissent and opposition that aggravate his self-doubt and are in turn heightened by it. As the vicious circle closes, a dictator’s responses become openly vicious.
These observations provide a rational explanation as to why the VP’s revelations – soft-spoken and apparently benign – have unleashed the wrath of the regime.
On each of the above counts, the VP challenged the P and thrust him toward the bad spot.
The tale of the super VP shows him as having undertaken single-handedly all of the following:
- he championed the cause of democratic reforms (yes! you heard him right) in the party and the government,
- he advocated the rule of law (he retained a serious countenance when he said this),
- he demanded that corruption be eradicated (don't worry, your hearing is still good),
- he deplored social injustice and the state of the economy,
- he pressed for more freedoms (no, your TV set didn’t flip channels at that very moment),
- he called for national dialogue that would include all political factions and made a plain overture to the opposition,
- he advised the P on the course of foreign policy that would best serve the interests of the country,
- he faulted the P for using undiplomatic speech with Lebanese politicians, and got him to admit the gaffe and backtrack (yes, you got it right again and no, you were not drowsing when that bit of the interview hit the air).
Now that’s serious because such a tale depicts the VP, rather than the P, as the omniscient, reformist, visionary, intelligent, compassionate, just, honest, and courageous leader the country deserves to have.
In a regime where the job of a VP doesn’t involve taking over when the P is incapacitated or dead, to appear to be angling for the post of Supreme Leader is unpardonable.
