Dimentio
28th January 2011, 23:29
Experience seems to indicate that if you are a dictator, and you want to stay in power while the people don't want you to stay in power, that you would need to massacre a couple thousands of them in order to make the rest of them calmer.
Examples are for example Syria 1982, Venezuela 1989, China 1989 (Tiananmen) and Iraq in 1991 (Shi'ite Rebellion).
Most dictators on the contrary have tried to stay in power with concessions, by for example promising a more constitutional system, sacking advisors and cabinets or instituting social reforms. This weakness is frowned upon by the people who want to overthrow them.
The question is: Why do most dictators avoid massacring their own peoples when they are about to lose power, and even go so far as to publically humiliate themselves?
Examples are for example Syria 1982, Venezuela 1989, China 1989 (Tiananmen) and Iraq in 1991 (Shi'ite Rebellion).
Most dictators on the contrary have tried to stay in power with concessions, by for example promising a more constitutional system, sacking advisors and cabinets or instituting social reforms. This weakness is frowned upon by the people who want to overthrow them.
The question is: Why do most dictators avoid massacring their own peoples when they are about to lose power, and even go so far as to publically humiliate themselves?