Kazakhstan’s explosion into unrest this week presents a stark warning to the strongman autocrats of the world: Leaving workplace is perilous.
For the reason that Chilly Battle’s finish, a staggering 70% of governments headed by strongmen collapsed after the ruler departed, in response to one knowledge set.
The pattern holds whether or not the chief leaves voluntarily or involuntarily, dies in workplace, or retires to a rustic house.
Typically, as in Spain after Francisco Franco’s demise in 1975, it opens the way in which to democratization. Extra usually, as in Egypt, Sudan, Zimbabwe and lots of others, the result’s a cycle of coups, civil battle or different violence.
Nursultan Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan’s lifelong chief till he started progressively handing energy to a successor in 2019, was, by all appearances, keenly conscious of this downside.
He advised an interviewer in 2014 that any nation akin to his wanted “a sustainable system put in place that might be secure towards the backdrop of a brand new chief’s arrival,” ticking by means of Malaysia or Singapore as doable fashions.
Nazarbayev stage-managed his personal departure in ways in which counsel painstaking consideration to the teachings of historical past, and his transition was watched carefully in Moscow and different capitals as a possible mannequin.
His departure doesn’t seem to have particularly set off Kazakhstan’s protests. However the unrest, the federal government’s failure to keep up assist and now its flailing response are typical of the divided, disoriented bureaucracies that always falter after a strongman’s departure.
The lesson, consultants stress, is hardly that strongmen convey stability. Fairly the other: Their model of rule erodes the foundations of governance, making themselves indispensable at the price of forsaking a political system barely able to governing however primed for infighting.
The Strongman’s dilemma
Autocrats akin to Nazarbayev who stand alone on the prime, versus those that rule on behalf of a bigger social gathering equipment as in Cuba or Vietnam, face a tough problem.
They need to strike a stability amongst all of their nation’s inside factions, ruling elites, safety companies and navy brass, guaranteeing every sufficient energy and spoils to maintain them purchased in however with out letting any develop highly effective sufficient to problem them.
Because of this, strongmen-led dictatorships are usually extra repressive and extra corrupt. And their leaders often obsess over potential rivals, whether or not a regional chief who grows too in style or a safety company with an excessive amount of autonomy.
In his 29 years of rule, Nazarbayev was, like many such leaders, infamous for shuffling his authorities, selling and demoting deputies to maintain them off stability.
However stifling rising stars, hollowing out energy centres and stuffing establishments with loyalists (usually chosen as a result of they’re too weak to pose a menace) leaves the federal government barely capable of stand by itself.
And it creates what some students name the strongman’s dilemma: the way to arrange a successor with out making a rival and the way to go away a authorities capable of outlast the chief with out making themselves redundant and weak.
Some attempt to resolve this by grooming members of the family. Two of the uncommon successes adopted this mannequin: Azerbaijan and Syria, the place dying autocrats handed energy to their sons.
Nonetheless, youngsters usually show unable to win the mandatory assist, inviting challengers to attempt to take energy themselves. North Korea is the one trendy nonmonarchy to have reached a 3rd era of household autocratic rule.
Appointing flunkies or different simply managed subordinates creates an identical downside.
However staying in workplace indefinitely is little higher. Because the chief’s well being inevitably falters, rivals and even allies could also be tempted to seize for energy earlier than another person can take it first. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe was 93 and visibly declining when he was deposed in a coup.
Because of this despots have a tendency to cover from public view after they have well being issues, to keep away from any look of frailty which may set off a race to interchange them. It’s additionally why the disappearance of a dictator, even a reviled one, tends to supply panicked rumours as residents concern the implications of an influence vacuum.
When strongman rule works, the chief is the keystone holding all of it collectively. However any keystone can also be the purpose of best weak point. If it falls away, the entire thing collapses. Which is exactly what usually occurs.
“The second of switch has virtually all the time been a second of disaster,” scholar Andrew Nathan has written, “involving purges or arrests, factionalism, typically violence, and opening the door to the chaotic intrusion into the political strategy of the lots or the navy.”
This dilemma has particularly hung over the previous Soviet world, the place autocrats have held on two or 3 times the common strongman’s tenure, which is a few decade.
However longer rule means an extended fall, for the chief and their nation, as soon as they inevitably depart.
This has heightened the stakes, with many post-Soviet leaders extending time period limits. Russian President Vladimir Putin lately pushed his to 2036, when he shall be 83.
With each passing 12 months, it turns into more durable for autocrats handy off energy, whereas the dangers rise of catastrophe if a disaster ought to drive them out.
“The chances of regime survival are very dim if the chief’s departure was compelled,” mentioned Erica Frantz, a Michigan State College scholar of authoritarianism.
That is rather more than an issue for strongmen. Such leaders are more and more widespread worldwide, a degree of convergence for each calcifying dictatorships and backsliding democracies. At the very least two sit within the coronary heart of Europe. Some consultants take into account China, the place Xi Jinping is constructing a cult of persona and has paved the way in which for lifelong rule, to now qualify.
And the extra of the world comes beneath this model of rule, the extra hundreds of thousands of persons are uncovered to the risks of a catastrophically failed succession.
Nazarbayev had seemingly addressed this downside by stepping midway out of energy as a loyalist nominally took over. In principle, he was to be simply current sufficient to maintain the system collectively however absent sufficient to permit it to coalesce round a brand new order.
Even in uncommon circumstances akin to Nazarbayev’s by which it seems like a transition has labored, Frantz mentioned she has present in her analysis, the brand new authorities tends to break down inside a mean of about 5 years.
“Their successors usually face critical challenges in governance,” she mentioned, citing Venezuela, the place President Nicolás Maduro has confronted ever-mounting crises since taking up from Hugo Chávez in 2013.
Kazakhstan now seems like an instance of this, too. It casts doubt on Nazarbayev’s supposed resolution and means that the issue of strongman succession could also be, on some stage, irresolvable.
It’s why, simply as Nazarbayev’s exit in 2019 is assumed to have been carefully watched in palace drawing rooms from Moscow to Manila, it’s a secure wager that the turmoil he did not forestall shall be as nicely.