LIKE WATERBOARDING, IT MAKES HIM PERSONALLY UNCOMFORTABLE BUT IT WORKS:

The New Libya's First Mistake: Muammar Qaddafi should not have been killed, and his surviving son should be captured. (Christopher Hitchens, Oct. 21, 2011, Slate)

At the close of an obscene regime, especially one that has shown it would rather destroy society and the state than surrender power, it is natural for people to hope for something like an exorcism. It is satisfying to see the cadaver of the monster and be sure that he can't come back. It is also reassuring to know that there is no hateful figurehead on whom some kind of "werewolf" resistance could converge in order to prolong the misery and atrocity. But Qaddafi at the time of his death was wounded and out of action and at the head of a small group of terrified riff-raff. He was unable to offer any further resistance. And all the positive results that I cited above could have been achieved by the simple expedient of taking him first to a hospital, then to a jail, and thence to the airport. Indeed, a spell in the dock would probably hugely enhance the positive impact, since those poor lost souls who still put their trust in the man could scarcely have their illusions survive the exposure to even a few hours of the madman's gibberings in court.

And so the new Libya begins, but it begins with a squalid lynching. News correspondents have been quite warm and vocal lately, about the general forbearance shown by the rebels to the persons and property of the Qaddafi loyalists. That makes it even more regrettable that the principle could not be honored in its main instance.

Unless, that is, the Libyans want to evolve into a democracy,  Violent Leader Removal Increases Likelihood of Democratization (Joshua Tucker, October 21, 2011, Monkey Cage)

In response to my request for research on the effect of the death of dictators on the future prospects of the country in question, Michael Miller of the Australian National University sent along the following comments:

    You pose some very interesting and timely questions related to Qaddafi's violent ouster and what this implies for Libya's democratic prospects. I have some research here directly on this question.

    The gist is this: On average, the violent removal of an autocrat (whether by coup, rebellion, assassination, threat, or foreign assistance--it doesn't seem to make much difference) makes it three times more likely that a country will democratize in the immediate future. About half of democratic transitions occur within five years of a violent ouster, and another quarter after a peaceful turnover between autocrats. Hence, there's a big association between an autocratic leader leaving office and autocracy ending. I argue the main reason is that violence indicates and contributes to regime weakness. The periods of chaos following violence, when elites are divided and citizens are engaged, provide the best possible openings for democratic actors to make their demands.

Posted by oj at October 22, 2011 7:43 AM
Tweet   

Follow @brothersjudd