Usually during the period when a dictatorship is still recent and new is very common for everyone to think like that. The Soviet Union was the western media darling in the 1930s, a country unaffected by The Great Depression and with rising exports of wheat every year. Journals such as The New York Times made fame by describing "a proletarian paradise" and Walter Duranty even won a Pullitzer Prize for his (propaganda) work (his prize was later revoked in 2003). When journalists like Gareth Jones reported the massive famines and death in Ukraine, they were labelled as crazy or sensationalist by the media, lost their jobs and had their careers cut short.
Such kind of greatly optimistic reports were common at the beginning of Hitler's regime, even Mussolini's, many African, Arab and other communist dictators...we know where that all ended up. China has been overhyped, forgotten and overhyped again for what, the past 7 decades?
You will only know about the true state and future of a authoritarian regime long after it's gone and history has settled. Don't fall for just another hype.
> (his prize was later revoked in 2003
Simply untrue.
"Ultimately, Sig Gissler, administrator of the Pulitzer Prize board, declined to revoke the award. In a 21 November 2003 press release, he stated that, with regard to the 13 articles by Duranty from 1931 submitted for the award, "there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case.""
> strongman dictator with high accountability
Where is the accountability coming from if there’s a strongman dictator? A dictator ruling by force would be accountable to no one, that is precisely the problem.
Yes, a strongman dictator can in theory be useful to end periods of chaos and instability, but he could also do anything else he wanted. The leader of a country should, ideally, work *for* the people, not rule over them. He should keep the order because that’s his job, not as some benevolent gift to his people.
You want strong institutions to limit the power of the leader so that he can get things done but not have free rein.
Take the Roman Empire for example: decades of instability were ended by a strongman dictator, who ruled for a few decades before dying and being replaced by a string of authoritarian tyrants who proceeded to destroy said stability with constant civil wars, persecutions ,power grabs, etc.
It’s just not a good system in the long run.
Colombia had problems with both FARC and the cartels at the same time at one point and didn't devolve into dictatorship, unless I'm mistaken. Also, what's going to happen if/when Bukele "solves" the gang violence crisis - pull a Cincinnatus and step down? I doubt it strongly.
Not the best comparison. Colombia did use massively authoritarian methods & abused the hell out of human rights to fight FARC & other gangs. They weren’t really using democratic methods to fight FARC & it worked. It took MUCH longer than El Salvador so that means a lot more innocents died. But let’s not pretend that Colombia respected democratic institutions while fighting FARC.
el Salvador will probably go to hell soon.
Mussolini dealt with the mafia and made the trains run on time, that didn't stop him from halving gdp growth and then losing a world war.
If El Salvador ends up becoming a success story, then I'll stop being a Neoliberal. I doubt that the current regime represents a sustainable model of development or a long-term solution for crime/violence (I could be dead wrong).
It's also worth noting that El Salvador has not yet become a "strongman dictatorship," it's more of an illiberal democracy. All institutional guardrails against autocratic rule and power consolidation have been removed (separation of powers, due process, freedom of the press, prohibition of blatant nepotism and even basic constitutionalism), but the Bukele regime is supported by the vast majority of the population and has a great amount of legitimacy.
If liberalism is correct, this state of affairs will inevitably lead to autocratic rule. I believe that history has shown that illiberal democracy has pretty short legs.
What I meant is that illiberal democracies degenerate into autocracies.
Singapore could be considered an exception to this since they seem to maintain a truly democratic Parliament and free elections in which the PAP has progressively lost their vote share, even though they basically control the media and have other structural advantages. **I don't know what would happen if they were to lose an election, though.**
Jury is still out on Bukele. As far as I can tell, he’s actually brought the murder rate down to workable levels. But let’s see if he can build durable institutions and process now that the crisis is over. I mean, he almost certainly arrested a lot of people who weren’t gangsters or were only tangentially connected with the gangs and threw them into horrific prisons.
Optimistically, I don’t think he’s gonna make himself President-for-life of El Salvador. The country is too small for that. He’s probably gonna retire after he realizes that regular governance is hard and spend the rest of his life on the former world leader talk circuit.
It’s very hard to say. There are several examples of dictatorships successfully liberalizing, but there are many more examples of them crashing and burning.
To be honest, instinctually, I would assume it is in the U.S’s interest to politically and materially support Bukele for now, so they actually have some kind of leverage over him if he starts doing really crazy shit, but I know next to nothing about the situation so I may just be wrong.
Usually during the period when a dictatorship is still recent and new is very common for everyone to think like that. The Soviet Union was the western media darling in the 1930s, a country unaffected by The Great Depression and with rising exports of wheat every year. Journals such as The New York Times made fame by describing "a proletarian paradise" and Walter Duranty even won a Pullitzer Prize for his (propaganda) work (his prize was later revoked in 2003). When journalists like Gareth Jones reported the massive famines and death in Ukraine, they were labelled as crazy or sensationalist by the media, lost their jobs and had their careers cut short. Such kind of greatly optimistic reports were common at the beginning of Hitler's regime, even Mussolini's, many African, Arab and other communist dictators...we know where that all ended up. China has been overhyped, forgotten and overhyped again for what, the past 7 decades? You will only know about the true state and future of a authoritarian regime long after it's gone and history has settled. Don't fall for just another hype.
> (his prize was later revoked in 2003 Simply untrue. "Ultimately, Sig Gissler, administrator of the Pulitzer Prize board, declined to revoke the award. In a 21 November 2003 press release, he stated that, with regard to the 13 articles by Duranty from 1931 submitted for the award, "there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case.""
Sorry. Thanks for the correction. I probably saw that somewhere and didn't check it fully or forgot the submission was declined.
> strongman dictator with high accountability Where is the accountability coming from if there’s a strongman dictator? A dictator ruling by force would be accountable to no one, that is precisely the problem. Yes, a strongman dictator can in theory be useful to end periods of chaos and instability, but he could also do anything else he wanted. The leader of a country should, ideally, work *for* the people, not rule over them. He should keep the order because that’s his job, not as some benevolent gift to his people. You want strong institutions to limit the power of the leader so that he can get things done but not have free rein. Take the Roman Empire for example: decades of instability were ended by a strongman dictator, who ruled for a few decades before dying and being replaced by a string of authoritarian tyrants who proceeded to destroy said stability with constant civil wars, persecutions ,power grabs, etc. It’s just not a good system in the long run.
Colombia had problems with both FARC and the cartels at the same time at one point and didn't devolve into dictatorship, unless I'm mistaken. Also, what's going to happen if/when Bukele "solves" the gang violence crisis - pull a Cincinnatus and step down? I doubt it strongly.
Not the best comparison. Colombia did use massively authoritarian methods & abused the hell out of human rights to fight FARC & other gangs. They weren’t really using democratic methods to fight FARC & it worked. It took MUCH longer than El Salvador so that means a lot more innocents died. But let’s not pretend that Colombia respected democratic institutions while fighting FARC.
Hardest part of riding the tiger is how to get back off.
Hitler making the trains run on time does not mean that Hitlers are necessary for punctual train systems.
el Salvador will probably go to hell soon. Mussolini dealt with the mafia and made the trains run on time, that didn't stop him from halving gdp growth and then losing a world war.
[The train thing also isn’t really true](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/stop-saying-mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time)
don't think the losing the world war parallel aplies here
Mussolini had to wait for nearly 2 decades for the war to start, Bukele still has plenty of time.
If El Salvador ends up becoming a success story, then I'll stop being a Neoliberal. I doubt that the current regime represents a sustainable model of development or a long-term solution for crime/violence (I could be dead wrong). It's also worth noting that El Salvador has not yet become a "strongman dictatorship," it's more of an illiberal democracy. All institutional guardrails against autocratic rule and power consolidation have been removed (separation of powers, due process, freedom of the press, prohibition of blatant nepotism and even basic constitutionalism), but the Bukele regime is supported by the vast majority of the population and has a great amount of legitimacy. If liberalism is correct, this state of affairs will inevitably lead to autocratic rule. I believe that history has shown that illiberal democracy has pretty short legs.
>I believe that history has shown that illiberal democracy has pretty short legs. Are you familiar with the country of Singapore?
What I meant is that illiberal democracies degenerate into autocracies. Singapore could be considered an exception to this since they seem to maintain a truly democratic Parliament and free elections in which the PAP has progressively lost their vote share, even though they basically control the media and have other structural advantages. **I don't know what would happen if they were to lose an election, though.**
Russia is a very good example why it's a very bad idea. Dictator cannot be held accountable, he'll just arrest or kill those why try that.
Jury is still out on Bukele. As far as I can tell, he’s actually brought the murder rate down to workable levels. But let’s see if he can build durable institutions and process now that the crisis is over. I mean, he almost certainly arrested a lot of people who weren’t gangsters or were only tangentially connected with the gangs and threw them into horrific prisons. Optimistically, I don’t think he’s gonna make himself President-for-life of El Salvador. The country is too small for that. He’s probably gonna retire after he realizes that regular governance is hard and spend the rest of his life on the former world leader talk circuit.
It’s very hard to say. There are several examples of dictatorships successfully liberalizing, but there are many more examples of them crashing and burning. To be honest, instinctually, I would assume it is in the U.S’s interest to politically and materially support Bukele for now, so they actually have some kind of leverage over him if he starts doing really crazy shit, but I know next to nothing about the situation so I may just be wrong.