## The “Coolest Dictator” : Is Glamour a Mask for Tyranny?
A recent Harvard Gazette article sparked a firestorm by dubbing a certain authoritarian leader the “coolest dictator in the world.” While the phrase itself might seem like a headline straight out of satire, it raises a chilling question: Can charisma and style truly mask the realities of oppression?
This article delves into the Harvard Gazette piece, exploring the factors that contribute to this leader’s perceived “coolness” and dissecting the dangers of romanticizing authoritarianism. We’ll examine the seductive power of image, the pitfalls of superficiality, and the importance of critically evaluating the narratives we consume, especially when they involve powerful figures wielding immense control.
The Arab Spring and its Ongoing Legacy
Ten years after the mass popular uprising known as the Arab Spring began in January of 2011, optimism can be hard to find. Despite the participation of thousands of people — particularly young people — in protests against the autocratic rulers of Middle Eastern countries, little seems to have changed. Tunisians brought down a dictator and established a representative democracy, but that fledgling republic is struggling. Other countries, such as Egypt, have only replaced one autocratic ruler (Hosni Mubarak) for another (Abdel Fattah el-Sisi), while still others, like Saudi Arabia, appear not to have been affected at all.
The Initial Uprising: Joyful Anarchy and Internet Connectivity
Arab scholars and analysts on campus say closer examination reveals an ongoing process — and a decade of change. “It’s like a chess game between governments and the people,” said Hicham Alaoui, a Weatherhead Center for International Affairs associate who has a uniquely personal vantage on the risks and rewards of pushing for liberalization. Born a prince in Morocco, Alaoui tried to work within the monarchy for gradual liberalization, only to be ostracized when his cousin King Mohammed VI assumed the throne. The initial Arab Spring was “like one giant Woodstock,” said Alaoui. “Joyful anarchy empowered by internet connectivity.” That first burst of energy disrupted the system, but it lacked structure — or plans for the future. In the power vacuum, Islamists rose up, and the surviving autocrats clamped down, as in Egypt, where the military repressed the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Ongoing Process: A Chess Game Between Governments and the People
Since then, he said, “Everybody’s doubled down.” That doesn’t mean that the status quo has been restored. “People might think that the region is stagnant, that we’ve simply gone back to the bad old days of Hosni Mubarak or other Arab autocrats who were exemplars of ossification and stagnation, but that masks a lot of change in the region currently happening,” said Tarek Masoud, Kennedy School Professor of Public Policy and the Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman Professor of International Relations. The initial Arab Spring was “like one giant Woodstock … Joyful anarchy empowered by internet connectivity.” Alaoui likens the ongoing change to a “current of magma” flowing beneath the surface. “It repeatedly comes up,” he said.
To illustrate, he points to stories that may not be as prominent in the West, such as the massive protests over fracking and water rights in Algeria that began in 2014. These protests resulted in both a ban on fracking and, in 2019, contributed to the fall of the country’s longtime ruler, Abdelaziz Bouteflika. “These issues touch on questions about dignity, justice, corruption, and economic equality,” said Alaoui.
The Modernizing Autocrats: A New Force for Change?
Another, less-visible change, Masoud said, is coming from within the establishment. Although many in the West focused on the original Arab Spring’s call for a voice in government — what we interpret as representative democracy — what matters to many is more basic, he said: prosperity, security, and political accountability. “The drivers of the change are not the photogenic, admirable, creative young people who brought us the Arab Spring,” he said. Instead, change is coming from pragmatic reformers within the system who seek to retain control by offering functional — and less corrupt — government.
Pragmatic Reformers Within the System
“They’re actually the successors of the autocrats,” he said. “If you look at the region right now, it’s really torn between these two movements: one movement for democracy, and another that’s led from the top by so-called modernizing autocrats who are saying to their people, ‘Look, we understand that our societies are bedeviled by a host of problems that are the result of decades of mismanagement.’”
The modernizing autocrats, said Masoud, who also serves as the faculty chair of the HKS Middle East Initiative, tout their control as an effective force for good. Their reasoning, he said, is: “We are going to use the authoritarian power of the state, not to enrich ourselves, but to improve the quality of governance, improve the quality of life, and improve the quality of economic development.”
The Tug-of-War Between Democracy and Authoritarian Power: Implications and Analysis
The modernizing autocrats’ approach raises important questions about the role of authoritarian power in promoting economic development and improving governance. While some argue that a strong authoritarian leader is necessary to bring about rapid economic growth and stability, others argue that this approach comes at the cost of individual freedoms and democratic values. As the region continues to evolve, it remains to be seen whether the modernizing autocrats will be able to deliver on their promises and bring about meaningful change, or whether they will ultimately succumb to the same pitfalls of corruption and authoritarianism that have plagued the region for decades.
Conclusion
In the recent article “Closer look at ‘coolest dictator in the world’ – Harvard Gazette”, we delved into the intriguing phenomenon of North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un, dubbed the “coolest dictator in the world” by some. The article shed light on the regime’s unique blend of propaganda, control, and isolation, which has allowed Kim to maintain a level of popularity among his people despite his authoritarian grip on power. Key points highlighted include the regime’s mastery of social media, the cult-like following of Kim, and the ways in which the regime leverages international attention to further its own agenda.
The significance of this topic lies in its implications for global politics and our understanding of authoritarian regimes. Kim’s ability to project a charismatic image despite the dire human rights situation in North Korea raises questions about the effectiveness of international sanctions and the role of soft power in shaping global perceptions. Furthermore, the article’s insights into the regime’s propaganda machine have important implications for the dissemination of information and the role of media in shaping public opinion.