When aspiring autocrats seek power they frequently claim to be working to unite citizens, whereas once they have consolidated power that "unity" becomes an imposed set of practices that often exclude self-determination for the people who are now subjects, no longer citizens. This is clearly the case in dictatorships, such as the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan (Tutumlu, Önemli & Rustemov, 2025). Karimov's assertions are not unlike those that used to come from dictators like Saddam Hussein and Moammar Qaddafi, claiming a cultural indigenization of democracy even while ruling by brutal oppression and fear.
Academics and activists sometimes analyze such claims of a special form of democracy as anti-neocolonial, seeming to justify repression in the name of rejecting "Western" models of governance. Other academics and activists hew to a more benign indigenization paradigm that, for example, stresses indigenous concepts such as African ubuntu, a variant of empathic humanism that has a much more unconditional positive regard for all.
To promote a kinder gentler form of governance, be very aware of the duplicitous claim of unity that is leading toward a unity based on giving more power to the leader and none except forced obeisance to subjects of that leader.
For instance, claims that it was liberating to strike down Roe v Wade and return the power to make laws about reproductive rights back to the states is a false unity assertion, not one that frees people or bolsters self-determination--ask women in states where abortion is basically outlawed.
Clarity on claims of democracy as an aspiring autocrat defines it are either roundly rejected or that leader takes another step toward being a ruler.
Reference
Tutumlu, A., Önemli, B., & Rustemov, I. (2025). Deciphering dictators’ discourse on Indigenous democracy: a case of Karimov’s Uzbekistan. Central Asian Survey, 44(1), 64–84. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1080/02634937.2024.2393386
No comments:
Post a Comment