By William Markiewicz
When dictatorship and democracy oppose each other, the best solution for an enlightened society would be, of course, freedom, meaning victory for democracy. But if dictatorships oppose each other, negotiations are better because freedom is more likely to arise in the presence of two weakened dictators than with one victorious. If the revolutionaries win in Syria, it will be mainly victory for Jihad, thus even less democracy for Syria than under Assad. In the Islamic countries the secular dictators are the weakest; secular Saddam, Gaddafi, Mubarak, are gone, while jihadist tyrants, supported by mullahs and not opposed particularly by the majority of the population, stay in power. Women and minorities remain the preferred victims, which may continue forever.
In Syria, Assad is secular, and his adversaries remain mixed groups where the jihadists grow stronger. Money, modern weaponry, dynamism, cult of martyrdom are keys to their successes, while the Westernized revolutionary intellectuals are less dynamic and live in fear. Secular tyrants are the lesser evil, not because they are better but because they are not as strong as the growing Jihad and therefore leave more space for democracy’s eventual appearance. Negotiations, if successful, will make both Assad and Jihadists weaker.Back to the index of the Vagabond