Killing a dictator doesn't change a regime: why do we continue to ignore it?
I know, this post isn't strictly about american politics, but is intended as a sort of outlet against those people who justify the actions of individuals or groups, based on the fact that a bad person has been eliminated. I'm the first to appear happy over the death of an authority figure, who violently enslaves and mistreats his own people But I think it's time to examine the broader picture, without dwelling on "a dictator died, so the bombing is right." And I also apologize for the wall of text, but this topic is often little discussed and belittled.
Foreign interference in a nation rarely leads to the collapse of an authoritarian regime, in favor of democracy. We demonstrated this first in Venezuela with the kidnapping of Maduro and then in Iran yesterday with the death of Khamenei. Of course, they are no longer in power, they no longer do harm, but their regime is still standing and they have been replaced by their loyal number two. Killing a leader isn't enough to change a country's political structure. Nations' political structures are based not only on individuality, but on institutions, loyalty, interests, fears, and internal and external balances. So it's childish to reduce all the complexity to "that's the bad guy to take down."
And when external intervention accelerates a leader's downfall, it often only reinforces their sense of siege, legitimizing successors to further rigidify the system. Furthermore, many ignore that when a regime survives the leader's death, it often emerges more united, because the transition will be managed internally, without popular pressure, without an open political process, without a credible alternative. The result is a new authoritarianism, even more structured. Therefore, the focus should not be on the death of the villain on duty, but on what changes for those who live there, because if the apparatus remains, so does repression.
Secondly, I would like to emphasize military foreign interference, because many downplay its burden as future consequences, but above all, normalize the use of force as a foreign policy instrument. International law exists so that the strongest nations do not implement a kind of social Darwinism, in which the weakest is oppressed, colonized, and enslaved. The Trump of the moment, acting in this way, It weakens this set of international rules, because it shows he can invade without real consequences. The beauty is that he hasn't hidden his interests. Remember the oil target in Venezuela? First you had Putin inventing Ukrainian Nazism, to have a casus belli, now with Trump, there's no need anymore. Do you want oil? if or takes, does it want to increase its influence over a territory? He conquers it by shedding the blood of opposing citizens and soldiers. He knows he will suffer no consequences.
and now, this is done by the leader of a theoretically democratic country, but one day? if authoritarian China decided that it wanted to gain dominion over a territory at all costs? Maybe we could end up under bombing and there will be no problem justifying ourselves, finding a reason, since it won't suffer consequences (especially if we isolate ourselves from the NATO alliance as many citizens would like). This is why normalizing rhetoric is not good; it's not only childish, but also dangerous, because it allows us to ignore the material consequences of actions, to avoid serious analysis, to transform politics into Hollywood storytelling. But the reality is that when a missile falls, it doesn't hit a movie character, but it hits real people, real buildings, destroying services, relationships, lives, and thus creating tragedies, and many forget that.
Furthermore, those who support these events often fail to understand that stability is not created through a vacuum. Eliminating a leader without a credible political process, an organized opposition, and a context ready for political transition does not produce democracy, but it does produce chaos. And chaos, stroically, is fertile ground for authoritarianism, militias, warlords, or external powers who want to exploit the place for personal gain. and there is also a factor of political imbalance and asymmetry, because the narrative of the strongest nation dominates the global discourse, so the nuances, the internal voices of the country, the local dynamics, are crushed by a simplified narrative, which serves geopolitical interests more than an understanding of the context and the situation. and so we end up celebrating events, which do not represent any liberation for those who live in those places, but rather will only be the beginning of a new cycle of fears and uncertainties.
romaincrisis
origamiaround
kaledo-art
snowghoul
theartofmadeline
discoholicmusic
2087
titsay
germansingergirl