Byr Mubarak Ali
PAKISTAN TODAY Monday, 31 Oct 2011

It was the tradition in Ancient Greece that whenever their city republic plunged into political chaos and disorder, they handed over the government to a tyrant to restore peace and order. Generally, the duration of his rule was to be 7 years; after completing this period and restoring order in the city, he was asked to retire. Sometimes the tyrant continued and had to be forced by the people to relinquish his authority. Interestingly, this tradition continued in the 14th century in the city of Florence which invited some powerful man from outside on a contractual basis to maintain peace and order and leave the city after the completion of his mission. In most cases, the tyrants left according to the contract. If not, they were forced to leave the city.
These instances show that some empowered authority like a ‘tyrant’ of sorts was required to combat the forces of anarchy and to keep peace and tranquillity. But the authority did not use their power in negatively. He had popular support and restored stability of the government and its institutions. However, it is no longer so. The meaning of the word ‘tyrant’ has changed during modern times. Modern democratic notions have falsified the need for such centralised authority. Now a tyrant is a person who assumes power and uses absolute authority brutally by crushing the opposition against his rule .Therefore, tyranny is attributed to acts of exploitation, suppression and killing and massacring people.
The phenomenon of modern dictatorship emerged when Napoleon conducted a coup in 1799 against the Revolutionary government with the motive to restore order which was disrupted by successive Revolutionary governments. To accomplish his mission, he used all kinds of coercive methods to crush all opposition and suppressed all the voices against his dictatorial power. He derived his authority from military power but he exposited the Revolutionary rhetoric to gain popular support. Once he established his position as the supreme leader, he transformed his dictatorship into an empire and assumed the title of emperor. However, his dream to establish a permanent empire and to colonise the whole of Europe by raising the slogans of equality, liberty, and fraternity failed as vanquished nations rebelled against French imperialism. He was finally defeated by Russia which not only disintegrated his empire but plunged France into chaos. After his defeat, he left France in disarray. Millions of French people who sacrificed to make him great only found defeat and humiliation in the end. That was a lesson from history that dictators, instead of stabilising their country, destroy it to fulfil their personal ambitions.
In the ancient period, the role of a tyrant was to restore order and establish peace. In the modern period, since Napoleon, dictators have assumed the role of self-styled reformers and saviours of the nations. Benito Mussolini mobilised the national sentiments of the Italians and promised to revive the glories of the Roman Empire. Adolf Hitler set out to rescue the German nation from humiliation and to create a sense of racial pride. In return, both dictators demanded people to surrender their fundamental rights and obey them without any question. They did and both dictators destroyed their countries in the name of greatness. Mussolini was hunted down and hanged upside down by people while Hitler committed suicide. The German nation is still struggling to get rid of Hitler’s legacy and the consequences of his dictatorship.
After decolonisation, military dictators emerged in the Third World. The colonial governments left the institution of the army stronger than other institutions of the state. This created political ambition in the army to grasp power in the name of reform and progress. When Ayub Khan assumed power in 1958 by accusing politicians of corruption and maladministration, he declared that he would bring change and restructure the state institutions. However, after a decade, it was found that the country instead of progressing was facing all kinds of problem and his government had miserably failed to arrest the decline of society. People were disappointed and launched a campaign against his rule. It was a novel phenomenon that a dictator had been dislodged by a popular movement rather than by some kind of internal conspiracy. He failed to crush it and resigned under pressure. The same process was repeated in case of Pervez Musharraf when the lawyers’ movement dislodged him and he had to leave.
Popular movements against dictators emerged recently in the Middle East. It shows the empowerment of people and a rejection of the notion of dictators that they are invincible, popular and loved by their people. It is what the sycophants and flatterers tell the dictators repeatedly and such delusions are further strengthened on the basis of conducting rigged referendums in which people vote overwhelmingly in their favour. Recent protests shocked dictators who were ‘elected’ by referendums without any challenge for decades. Still, these dictators were not ready to understand that people want change of rule and not continuity. Many of these dictators now had a choice before them: either to surrender voluntarily (as happened in the case of Mubarak) or to be ousted by bloody civil war (as happened in the case of Muammar Qaddafi).
People’s power has emerged with such force that the western imperial powers (to whom these dictators suited) have now changed their foreign policy: instead of supporting these cronies, they are now favouring the people’s movements. Perhaps it will take some time to consolidate the democratic institutions in nations with these movements but one thing is for sure: the political scene in those countries where dictators ruled absolutely is going to change.

The writer is one of the pioneers of alternate history in the country.