Weaknesses of Dictatorships  

By Walter Derzko

Gene Sharp, a retired professor, has written a book called From Dictatorship to Democracy, which has been used as the play book for many coloured-revolutions over the past 20 years. It’s available as a free download (www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf). I urge all readers not only to read it but to forward it to colleagues in Ukraine, a country that has followed the reverse path from democracy back to dictatorship in the past year.

In Chapter 4, Sharp offers hope when he concludes that all dictatorships have one or more weaknesses: “Dictatorships often appear invulnerable. Intelligence agencies, police, military forces, prisons, concentration camps, and execution squads are controlled by a powerful few. A country’s finances, natural resources, and production capacities are often arbitrarily plundered by dictators and used to support the dictators’ will. In comparison, democratic opposition forces often appear extremely weak, ineffective, and powerless. That perception of invulnerability against powerlessness makes effective opposition unlikely.” He goes on to state that: “The phrase “Achilles’ heel” refers to the vulnerable part of a person, a plan, or an institution at which if attacked there is no protection. The same principle applies to ruthless dictatorships. They, too, can be conquered, but most quickly and with least cost if their weaknesses can be identified and the attack concentrated on them.”

Sharp provides the follow list of weaknesses of dictatorships that is worth reflecting on:

1. The cooperation of a multitude of people, groups, and institutions needed to operate the system may be restricted or withdrawn.

2. The requirements and effects of the regime’s past policies will somewhat limit its present ability to adopt and implement conflicting policies.

3. The system may become routine in its operation, less able to adjust quickly to new situations.

4. Personnel and resources already allocated for existing tasks will not be easily available for new needs.

5. Subordinates fearful of displeasing their superiors may not report accurate or complete information needed by the dictators to make decisions.

6. The ideology may erode, and myths and symbols of the system may become unstable.

7. If a strong ideology is present that influences one’s view of reality, firm adherence to it may cause inattention to actual conditions and needs.

8. Deteriorating efficiency and competency of the bureaucracy, or excessive controls and regulations, may make the system’s policies and operation ineffective.

9. Internal institutional conflicts and personal rivalries and hostilities may harm, and even disrupt, the operation of the dictatorship.

10. Intellectuals and students may become restless in response to conditions, restrictions, doctrinarism, and repression.

11. The general public may over time become apathetic, sceptical, and even hostile to the regime.

12. Regional, class, cultural, or national differences may become acute.

13. The power hierarchy of the dictatorship is always unstable to some degree, and at times extremely so. Individuals do not only remain in the same position in the ranking, but may rise or fall to other ranks or be removed entirely and replaced by new persons.

14. Sections of the police or military forces may act to achieve their own objectives, even against the will of established dictators, including by coup d’tat.

15. If the dictatorship is new, time is required for it to become well established.

16. With so many decisions made by so few people in the dictatorship, mistakes of judgment, policy, and action are likely to occur.

17. If the regime seeks to avoid these dangers and decentralizes controls and decision making, its control over the central levers of power may be further eroded.

Sharp provides advice, which activists in Ukraine and in the Diaspora should heed: “With knowledge of such inherent weaknesses, the democratic opposition can seek to aggravate these “Achilles’ heels” deliberately in order to alter the system drastically or to disintegrate it.”

The conclusion is then clear: “despite the appearances of strength, all dictatorships have weaknesses, internal inefficiencies, personal rivalries, institutional inefficiencies, and conflicts between organizations and departments. These weaknesses, over time, tend to make the regime less effective and more vulnerable to changing conditions and deliberate resistance.”

What’s the key weakness in Ukraine’s authoritative regime from the above list? In my opinion, it’s the embedded inherent corruption and the resulting money laundering of assets overseas.

Hanna Herman, commenting on air on Ukrainian TVi in March, said that Ukrainians have no political power because they are not rich like their Russian speaking neighbours. When Vyachyslav Chornovil led us to meeting and to sing patriotic songs, Komsomol functionaries were taking over banks and privatizing businesses. Now these [obscenely] rich people have influence and can dictate political trends, says Herman. …and that wealth gap is their weakness.

Let's follow the hryvnia trail!