why is it necessary for unpopular leaders to abdicate?

[lemur]

Mubarak and now Khadaffi were/are under popular pressure to abdicate their power, but how would that actually work in practice? If an individual becomes unpopular as a leader, what power would they have to abdicate or not? Presumably the point is that these individuals are obeyed by military forces and those who are rebelling against them want to control those forces. But why would the military give up just because their commander abdicates? Apparently what these rebellions want is not for the commanders to abdicate but for them to use their power to command the military to obey some other commander or interests besides themselves or the interests that they have been heretofore pursuing. If the rebels really wanted to undermine these individiuals' power, why wouldn't they just convince the military forces to join them? If they are powerful enough to subdue the military, then haven't they themselves already overthrown the power of the military and dictator they so hate? In that case, what is the point of continuing to push for abdication? Is it that the rebels wish to have their power recognized by these leaders in the form of abdication? It is just a matter of getting them to "cry uncle?"

 

At the point the rebels secure power to dominate the overthrown regime, do they have any ethical responsibility to treat them with respect as prisoners of war or will it be rape, pillage, and the spoils of war victory? If so, won't this motivate the existing regime that much more strongly to use violent force to defend themselves against such a fate?

Edited February 24, 2011 by lemur

[Mr Skeptic]

If you're sufficiently unpopular, the choice is between abdicating and being killed. Either way you're out of power.

[lemur]

If you're sufficiently unpopular, the choice is between abdicating and being killed. Either way you're out of power.

Right, but my point is that if people have attained sufficient power to kill you, that means you have totally lost control of your police/military protection, which means you no longer have any power to advocate, right? So at that point, what is the purpose of making that individual abdicate? You no longer have an army to abdicate, do you? Is it that they want you to lie and say you think their new government is going to do a really good job? It is reminiscent of the famous Darth Vader line, "join us or die." What's democratic about that?

Edited February 24, 2011 by lemur

[waitforufo]

If no one is following you, are you a leader?

[lemur]

If no one is following you, are you a leader?

That's my point. It's not necessary to commit any violence to overthrow an individual because the only reason that individual has social power in the first place is because other people give it to them by believing in their authority (or threats) and submitting to it.

 

edit: someone needs to make a political cartoon of Mubarak and Khadaffi surrounded by soldiers with guns pointed at them and a large crowd with one soldier saying, "give up your power or else!" Would readers even understand that in the cartoon that the two individuals no longer hold any power if everyone is against them?

Edited February 24, 2011 by lemur

[Horza2002]

If you notice though, the current situation in Libya and Egypt are people rebelling against the leaders that they had no say in being in charge. And normally, these dictators have a "secret police" type organisation to quell any attempt to remove thir leader. However, as history has shown, you can only oppress people for so long before they fight back...and again, there is only so much peaceful protests can do. If that doesn't get what people want and the opposition attempt to silence them, then the only thing thats going to happen is violence.

[lemur]

If you notice though, the current situation in Libya and Egypt are people rebelling against the leaders that they had no say in being in charge. And normally, these dictators have a "secret police" type organisation to quell any attempt to remove thir leader. However, as history has shown, you can only oppress people for so long before they fight back...and again, there is only so much peaceful protests can do. If that doesn't get what people want and the opposition attempt to silence them, then the only thing thats going to happen is violence.

Secret police is a good point, but what makes you think that the secret police actually defer to the authority of the figure head? Couldn't it just as well be that the real masterminds behind authoritarian power keep themselves hidden from view to avoid assassination attempts and other public scrutiny and harassment? Wouldn't you just expect these seemingly powerful leaders to just be charismatic public speakers who are manipulated like puppets by people behind the scenes? I know this sounds like conspiracy theory but I just don't see why truly authoritarian people would subject themselves to the mercy of popular resistance by having a high public profile.

 

edit: I don't think it's liberation from oppression that is sought but the ability to control the power resources of the government being overthrown. The subjects don't overthrow the monarchy to be free of royal decree, they do so to appropriate the power of that decree to pursue their own interests. Then, they convince themselves that they are better than the king they overthrew simply because they put more people on the payroll and thus solicit more approval. If you rob a millionaire, you can probably pay for enough friends to say you're a better investor than he was.

The parent who spoils you is always more popular than the one that doesn't, but that doesn't mean spoiling the kids is good for the family.

Edited February 24, 2011 by lemur

[Mr Skeptic]

It is reminiscent of the famous Darth Vader line, "join us or die." What's democratic about that?

 

It's more like "go away or die". And you're asking what's democratic about a people selecting their leader?

 

As for why people might want an ousted leader to formally abdicate their position, think about what someone who rebels against their government is doing. It's called high treason and the usual punishment is execution. Abdicating formally gets rid of that, and it helps to legitimize the new government in the eyes of any still loyal supporters and to unite the country. And it's about the only thing the former leader could still do that his people would appreciate.

[ydoaPs]

It's more like "go away or die". And you're asking what's democratic about a people selecting their leader?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

 

I shouldn't need to name the source for that quote.

[lemur]

It's more like "go away or die". And you're asking what's democratic about a people selecting their leader?

 

As for why people might want an ousted leader to formally abdicate their position, think about what someone who rebels against their government is doing. It's called high treason and the usual punishment is execution. Abdicating formally gets rid of that, and it helps to legitimize the new government in the eyes of any still loyal supporters and to unite the country. And it's about the only thing the former leader could still do that his people would appreciate.

This is making more sense, but why is it that the rebels don't simply pardon themselves for "high treason" or whatever crime it is they think they committed under their own authority? To me it is simply silly that people who take power would continue seeking authority in the individual(s) they rebelled against.

 

Then the question is why someone would legitimate the new government if they honestly didn't think it had a good ideology or plan to govern? If there was a popular rebellion of national socialists, would you expect Obama to lie and say he legitimates the new government despite his reservations? He might do so if he was in desperate enough fear of the consequences of freely speaking his opinion, but would anyone recognize this as democratic or would it just be majoritarian terrorism?

 

 

[ydoaPs]

This is making more sense, but why is it that the rebels don't simply pardon themselves for "high treason" or whatever crime it is they think they committed under their own authority?

Because the loyalists to the prior administration would find that to be illegitimate?

[lemur]

I shouldn't need to name the source for that quote.

Regardless, you should have to submit the validity of invoking it to a politically-neutral judicial authority, no?

 

 

 

 

Because the loyalists to the prior administration would find that to be illegitimate?

You can't please everyone. If they wanted to pursue their criticisms through fair due process, what would stop them?

[Horza2002]

There is another key phrase there:

 

You can't please everyone

 

Not matter what society in what country, you cannot please everyone...there are just too many view points on any given subject/ideal that many of them are bound to be opposits. Generally, here in the West, we go on the basis that the majority view is the one we adopt seeing as its the one most people agree with/want. However, in these countries, it is the minority that are ruling and telling the majority what to do.

 

The rebel could indeed pardon themselve, because it would only be high treason against a government/leadership that doesn't exist anymore...I'm sure that is what happened in all the Revolutions during the Medieval era (French, Russian and the English Civil war).

[Mr Skeptic]

This is making more sense, but why is it that the rebels don't simply pardon themselves for "high treason" or whatever crime it is they think they committed under their own authority? To me it is simply silly that people who take power would continue seeking authority in the individual(s) they rebelled against.

 

I think it's more a question of unity than of authority. But it is also a question of authority. No one ever has the unanimous support of every last person. Rush Limbaugh, for example, has a large following. He has no government authority and yet people do listen to what he has to say and his words influence their actions. Similarly, when one candidate from one party loses the nomination for president against another candidate from the same party, it is expected of him that he renounce his intent to run for president so as not to split the party -- even though he could still run. More sinisterly, a crime lord has followers that can and will kill at his command, even if he has no government authority. Just because someone lost power doesn't mean that suddenly no one cares about them anymore, nor that everyone suddenly accepts the new leadership as legitimate.

[lemur]

I think it's more a question of unity than of authority. But it is also a question of authority. No one ever has the unanimous support of every last person. Rush Limbaugh, for example, has a large following. He has no government authority and yet people do listen to what he has to say and his words influence their actions. Similarly, when one candidate from one party loses the nomination for president against another candidate from the same party, it is expected of him that he renounce his intent to run for president so as not to split the party -- even though he could still run. More sinisterly, a crime lord has followers that can and will kill at his command, even if he has no government authority. Just because someone lost power doesn't mean that suddenly no one cares about them anymore, nor that everyone suddenly accepts the new leadership as legitimate.

Rush Limbaugh may impress a lot of people but would those same people support him if he was presiding unanimously over war tribunals in judgement of an overthrown regime? I agree with what you are saying about the potential for any high profile individual to have people who will not only kill at their command but possibly even in their interest (without their command), not to mention in their name regardless of either their command OR their interest.

 

 

Similarly, when one candidate from one party loses the nomination for president against another candidate from the same party, it is expected of him that he renounce his intent to run for president so as not to split the party -- even though he could still run

But should the candidate do this because it is expected of them or because they legitimately consider it the best strategy for supporting the candidate they think will best run the government? If Clinton had truly thought that Obama would make a terrible president, shouldn't she act on that rather than supporting his candidacy just because it was expected of her? Shouldn't independent judgment trump social conformity or submission to popular opinion in significant decision-making?

 

Just because someone lost power doesn't mean that suddenly no one cares about them anymore, nor that everyone suddenly accepts the new leadership as legitimate.

And why should those people be excluded from representation in the new government, as long as they don't abuse their voice to totally undermine the democracy?

 

edit: what if an unpopular leader accepts overthrow but insists on continuing to voice their honest political opinions? Should their freedom of speech be protected/respected or should censorship be legitimated on the basis of suppressing the inertia of the previous regime?

Edited February 25, 2011 by lemur

[Mr Skeptic]

edit: what if an unpopular leader accepts overthrow but insists on continuing to voice their honest political opinions? Should their freedom of speech be protected/respected or should censorship be legitimated on the basis of suppressing the inertia of the previous regime?

 

My guess is that he'd likely die. People aren't really very likely to appreciate someone who had been repressing them 30 years and who they just forced out of office trying to promote his own political opinions -- again. It would probably depend on what "honest political opinions" he was voicing. Though I'd say he should have that right so long as it is not promoting insurrection against the new government. In any case, if the opinions he expresses are what he was doing while in office, that's what he got kicked out for, and if it is different he is basically condemning himself ("I wasn't acting in your best interest before"). So he'd probably be best off keeping his opinions to himself.

[lemur]

My guess is that he'd likely die. People aren't really very likely to appreciate someone who had been repressing them 30 years and who they just forced out of office trying to promote his own political opinions -- again. It would probably depend on what "honest political opinions" he was voicing. Though I'd say he should have that right so long as it is not promoting insurrection against the new government. In any case, if the opinions he expresses are what he was doing while in office, that's what he got kicked out for, and if it is different he is basically condemning himself ("I wasn't acting in your best interest before"). So he'd probably be best off keeping his opinions to himself.

In practice, I agree that this is probably what would happen. My point is that it is indicative of authoritarian repressive governance. Democracy involves respecting everyone's right to free speech. When people fall into the temptation to vindicate themselves against former oppressors, this reproduces the culture of oppression in the other direction. This is why Bishop Tutu and others promoted "truth and reconciliation" following the fall of the national party. It's not so much about protecting and respecting the former oppressors as it is about setting precedents for fair and just governance. If former oppressors are tried and punished in a fair way that doesn't send out an oppressive message that deters people from giving reasonable consideration to their ideologies, that is one thing. The problem is that even in relatively open-critical democratic discourses, the effect of differentiation from unpopular leaders out of fear for social disapproval takes place. E.g. many people are afraid to even consider respecting the ideologies associated with GWBush or Obama because they would be subject to harsh social exclusion from peers if they would express less that total disdain. If that effect is this strong when there was no violent uprising or murderous hate for the president, what do you think it's like among people who curse and spit and vow painful murder of the representative of a particular ideology?

 

Imo, the really sad thing is that these individuals are just ideological figureheads and they get targeted with all the authoritarianism that causes people to believe that they hold magical power to control others against their will. In reality, every bit of social power these individuals has comes from other people, yet because they are in the position of greatest media visibility, they get targeted for blame instead of the people who make others fear and hate them in the first place. This is why every hated political leader is like a Christ figure, imo. I'm not saying they're all holy, but they are all just individuals elevated to hated status by others around them based on deeds of their followers that get attributed to them.

Edited February 25, 2011 by lemur

[Zolar V]

I think the answer to your question on why a unpopular leader should adbicate is solely founded in our custums. We as ruled people have always had ceremonies and other events that legitimize what the ceremony is about. For instance marriage, is two people undoubtly in love, the perfect match, married in spirit even before the official ceremony? what then is the point of the ceremony?

 

The same concept applies to such custums and ceremonies as abdicating power, and gaining power. These ceremonies legitimize in the eyes of the people, the intent of the subject of the ceremony.

 

Lets say that the unpopular official neither abdicates his rule or gets killed. Why does he still have power? Why do the leaders of the military still follow the rule of the unpopular official? why do the common soldier follow the rules of those in power over them?

 

If the people sufficiently popularize a perticular figure, how does he gain the support of the military? how would he suceed control over the government when the unpopular official has not adbicated power?

 

I suppose we could look at previous examples in history to infer how these concepts correlate with each other. Hitler, he rose to power by the peoples popularity. Did the previous leader adbicate to hitler? If so why did he? what happened to him?

[lemur]

I think the answer to your question on why a unpopular leader should adbicate is solely founded in our custums. We as ruled people have always had ceremonies and other events that legitimize what the ceremony is about. For instance marriage, is two people undoubtly in love, the perfect match, married in spirit even before the official ceremony? what then is the point of the ceremony?

Everyone attributes meanings and importance to the ceremony and symbols in their own way.

 

The same concept applies to such custums and ceremonies as abdicating power, and gaining power. These ceremonies legitimize in the eyes of the people, the intent of the subject of the ceremony.

Who has the power to speak for "the people" as some kind of unified collective individual? Just because people can be instigated to seemingly collective behavior doesn't mean they all have the same thoughts or beliefs. And even if many or a majority of people see institutional authority and the ceremonies that signify them as realities, does that make it so? Do you believe that once insanity or lies have spread among a majority of people, they suddenly become sane or true?

 

Lets say that the unpopular official neither abdicates his rule or gets killed. Why does he still have power? Why do the leaders of the military still follow the rule of the unpopular official? why do the common soldier follow the rules of those in power over them?

They don't except for the fact that people still sub-consciously give them power by reacting against their power. By arguing with authority, you reinforce it. Once you become fully convinced that it is no longer legitimate and therefore no longer authority, it becomes the opposition/minority and argues with you.

 

If the people sufficiently popularize a perticular figure, how does he gain the support of the military? how would he suceed control over the government when the unpopular official has not adbicated power?

The military are people like anyone else. Their hearts and minds are (or at least should be) open to reason. If they refuse to consider reasonable command-authority claims, they are acting unreasonably, or not? Personally, if I was a military commander and it was unclear who was in charge, I would make the best decisions I could to keep the peace and establish civil discourse and democratic multilateral power. If I was confronted with a popular movement that was attempting to suppress freedom, I would rebel against the rebellion in the most effective way possible. Obviously, the first thing you want to do is just tell them to calm down and talk about it, and when they are too militant to do that, what steps do you have to take to prevent them from dominating by force?

 

I suppose we could look at previous examples in history to infer how these concepts correlate with each other. Hitler, he rose to power by the peoples popularity. Did the previous leader adbicate to hitler? If so why did he? what happened to him?

Even Jesus abdicated to Pontius Pilate, by saying that Pilate had no authority except that which was given him from above. My issue, however, has nothing to do with traditions of abdication and institutional authority. It is just to point out that it is institutional insanity to require an overthrown authority figure to abdicate their authority after being overthrown. It would be far more logical to just start doing things the way you want and tell the authority figure they can say whatever they want but they can't use any kind of force to attempt governance.

 

The problem comes with leaders whose power comes from legitimate authority, meaning voluntary social cooperation on the part of others who legitimately agree with their perspective. In that case, a popular rebellion must seek to undermine the (legitimate) authority of the ideology they disagree with. For example, if opponents of fiscal conservatism wanted to undermine the tea party movement or party republicanism, etc. they couldn't just plead their case because conservatives don't think it is necessary to spend as much money as liberals do. So then the only other option is to manipulate them by some combination of tactics to get them to abdicate their control over money and/or economic resources.

 

 

[Marat]

When it looked as though England might soon be invaded by Germany in World War II, the philosopher Bertrand Russell suggested that the invasion should not be opposed, but that when the Germans came everyone should still carry on acting the way they always did, on the theory that no government can really rule unless it has at least the tacit acquiescence and passive cooperation of the people it seeks to rule. If a government were widely ignored, would it be necessary or useful to depose it? Twenty people giving orders from a command post could be reduced to a debating society if no one paid them much attention. If this line of reasoning is correct, then all governments would have to be described as democratic in some sense, since otherwise they would cease to be governments by falling of their own weight, even without a revolt.

 

But then again, how democratic is democracy? The governing forces of the society, which include all the financial, religious, and political elites, establish certain ideological presuppositions as the common assumptions within which all public debate occurs. These are often totally unreal and serve only to limit thinking to the parameters which the elites find in their interests. Once indoctrinated in this way, the people are, in an elaborate ceremony, asked to vote on candidates generated usually by covert negotiations within the elites. Of course, the people carry out the commands of the ideology in which they have been schooled, so the elite essentially just measures the effectiveness of its indoctrination efforts at elections, rather than really exposing itself to the threat of change under the pressure of an independent popular vote.

 

This is going on now in the U.S., where taxes are in fact extraordinarily compared to other developed countries, and where this is the actual cause of the deficit. However, since raising progressive taxes would hurt the elites, the only issue posed for public discussion is 'How do we get spending down to get rid of the massive debt?' It's all a farce, and the process of voting exists mainly to disguise the fact that it is a farce.

[Mr Skeptic]

And once again, France surrenders. No, wait, they're the first country with enough balls to formally recognize the Transitional National Council, the main opposition force to Col. Gadhafi, as the "legitimate representative of the Libyan people," a move which I believe will save many lives. The rest of us pussies have for the most part just been waiting to see what happens before speaking up.

 

France first to recognise Libyan rebels as "legitimate representatives of the people" France became the first country to formally recognize a newly formed Libyan opposition council as the "legitimate representative of the Libyan people." The office of French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Thursday it will send ambassadors to the rebel stronghold in Benghazi, and in return the Libyan opposition council will set up an embassy in Paris.

[lemur]

And once again, France surrenders. No, wait, they're the first country with enough balls to formally recognize the Transitional National Council, the main opposition force to Col. Gadhafi, as the "legitimate representative of the Libyan people," a move which I believe will save many lives. The rest of us pussies have for the most part just been waiting to see what happens before speaking up.

 

France first to recognise Libyan rebels as "legitimate representatives of the people" France became the first country to formally recognize a newly formed Libyan opposition council as the "legitimate representative of the Libyan people." The office of French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Thursday it will send ambassadors to the rebel stronghold in Benghazi, and in return the Libyan opposition council will set up an embassy in Paris.

This sounds like a good idea to me, but who would dare to express any kind of political ideas that would be identified with those of the previous regime in any way? I think it may be a long time before supporters of the previous regime will dare to fully participate in the emergent democracy. Theoretically, they should not fear subjugation to the spirit of the rebellion but doesn't this always happen when a rebellion topples a demonized regime? I think you could call this authoritarianism of opposition since basically any political idea that doesn't oppose the former regime is suppressed out of fear of demonization. Democratically, you would expect it to simply be put on the table and discussed reasonably but people are usually too emotionally charged to be disciplined.

[Mr Skeptic]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8378392/Libya-Arab-League-calls-for-United-Nations-no-fly-zone.html

 

The Arab League has voted to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Gaddafi's airstrikes on the rebels. Furthermore, the League refused to allow envoys from Gaddafi's regime but instead allowed representatives from the rebel movement.

 

Also, it seems that without us outsiders interfering Gaddafi would win due to superior military hardware. This complicates ethical choice for us.

[lemur]

http://www.telegraph...o-fly-zone.html

 

The Arab League has voted to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Gaddafi's airstrikes on the rebels. Furthermore, the League refused to allow envoys from Gaddafi's regime but instead allowed representatives from the rebel movement.

 

Also, it seems that without us outsiders interfering Gaddafi would win due to superior military hardware. This complicates ethical choice for us.

Maybe I'm just a devil's advocate by reflex, but it bugs me that I haven't heard one argument against Gaddafi besides the fact that he's unpopular. How am I supposed to know whether the rebels aren't simply wrong and his regime is simply right?