Lately one would be forgiven for seeing the sign of the end
of times following recent events in the region.
The implosion in South Sudan, which we saw coming but we did
not; the rejuvenation of the Allied Democratic Front (ADF) in eastern Congo;
assassinations and revelations of wiretapping
in the best tradition of the cloak and dagger novel and anticipation of
famine and hunger in the wake of disturbing environmental changes.
The politics
that inform these developments, more opaque than nought have us shaking our
heads in befuddlement and increases our anxiety about the future.
We could look to divine revelation to decipher the going
ons, but that maybe the privilege of a few chosen ones.
For the rest of us mere
mortals, we could do well to reach for “The Dictator’s Handbook: Why bad
behaviour is almost always good politics,” authored by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
and Alastair Smith.
The authors start the book with the disquieting caveat,
“The picture we paint will not be pretty. It will not
strengthen hope for humankind’s benevolence and altruism.”
The authors note that the line between autocratic and
democratic leaders is a blurred one, they then continue to construct a cross
cutting model for how power is captured, sustained and eventually lost which is
convincing when viewed against the power plays we see in our everyday lives.
What is the ideal we hold leaders to that they come woefully
short in meeting time and time again? In a nut shell, that they be selfless in ruling
in our best interest.
The authors waste no time in shooting down that notion,
“
"First, politics is about getting and keeping political power. It is not about the general welfare of “We the people.”
That applies to both the democrats and autocrats.
What distinguishes the two leadership styles is the number
of people they depend on to sustain them in power, with the autocrat needing
fewer than the democrat. Using this as a differentiator one will be shocked to
find that those we thought were democrats may actually be autocratic and the
reverse can be found to be true.
This distinction is at the center of their whole analysis
and dictates politicians’ behaviour.
They break up the politicians’ constituency into the
interchangeables, the influentials and the essentials.
To use a democratic example, the interchangables are those
with a right to vote, they are important because they can vote but politicians
do not lose sleep over the loss of one voter or the other because there will
always be another to take their place. The influentials actually choose the
leader and are a fraction of the greater voting public, these could be party
leaders who nominate the party’s candidate or members of a ruling family in a
monarchy.
The essentials are the even smaller group that keep a
politician in power these could range from the tribal heads, to army generals
or a kitchen cabinet, basically those few high ups who if they choose to look
the other way regimes come tumbling.
Managing these three groups is where the action is.
“The choice between enhancing social welfare or enriching a
privileged few is not a question of how benevolent a leader is. Honourable
motives might seem important, but they are overwhelmed by the need to keep
supporters happy, and the means of keeping them happy depends on how many need
rewarding.”
Basically the wider the base of supporters the more democratic a leader is likely to be. If the leader is accountable to a small group then he can keep himself in place by private payoffs but if the group is bigger he cannot pay them off individually so then he has to deliver public goods and services to the wider society to stay in power...
So in trying to create more a democratic society the trick
is to widen the number of people the leader is accountable to, a situation the
leader will resist as it flies in the face of his attempts to concentrate power
– the best way to ensure longevity.
While his examples and justifications of why our worst
tyrants behave the way they do can be disturbing they allow one to view
politics differently from what we are used to – they warn us at the beginning
of the book to suspend conventional wisdom.
And just in case you are under the illusion that the authors
drew from the worst despots – Idi Amin and the Shah of Iran receive mention, in
coming to their conclusions, they also pepper the book with the examples from
corporate America and capitals of western democracy to illustrate autocracy.
Far from being a dark, cynical book it is written in an
easy-to-read, oftentimes even humorous style that makes the journey enjoyable,
were it not for the shattering of conventional wisdoms at every turn of the
page.
The book is a must read for the students of power and those
aspiring to assume power, if only to help them remove their rose tinted view of
the world and therefore understand what they are up against.
As for the autocrats you hope they don’t lay hands on this
book to crystallise and tweak their methods even more.
·
The book is available in all leading book
stores.
