Almost every time a new leader is appointed in an authoritarian state, the question arises: will they represent change or a continuation of current policies? In most cases, foreign commentators are disappointed; no change comes about as a result of a change in leadership. Expectations tend to be especially optimistic when the heir-apparent is perceived as “Western,” often by virtue of having been educated in the West. President of Syria Bashar Al-Assad and Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un were both expected to be reformers for this very reason. However, the change that Western commentators expected or hoped for failed to materialize. It is problematic that leaders, educated or otherwise “fully integrated” into Western society, do not adopt what is most central to Western societies—freedom as an ideal for government. The vast majority of future leaders of non-democratic countries return home to continue policies that directly violate human rights. If these future leaders have absorbed anything, it is often an understanding of the mechanics, rather than the motivations, of democratic society.
The relationship that many dictators perceived as “Western” have with Western values was highlighted by the following quote taken from Barbara Walter’s December 2011 interview with Bashar Al-Assad:
Bashar Al-Assad: Who said that the UN is a credible institution?
Barbara Walters: You do not think the UN is credible?
BA: No.
BW: You have an ambassador to the UN.
BA: Yes, it is a game we play, but that doesn’t mean we believe in it.
This seems an apt explanation for many “Westernized” dictators’ behavior; they adopt the games they like and discard the ones they do not. Society is seen as a tool, rather than an ideal. Superficial aspects of Western culture are easily adopted or abandoned—deeply ingrained Western values are kept or discarded just as easily.
Al-Assad was widely seen as a ray of hope for Syria when he first came to power in 2000, taking over after his father. As Barbara Walters put it, “Not long ago, you were widely seen as a fresh, pragmatic leader; a doctor whose life was in healing people. Now, sir, much of the world regards you as a dictator and a tyrant.” Al-Assad was an eye-doctor who had his residency at a hospital in England. His wife, Asma Al-Assad, was born, raised, educated and employed in the UK. She graduated from King’s college in London with a degree in Computer Science and was working for JP Morgan by the time she met her husband. Then they returned to Syria to become the faces of one of the most despotic and violent regimes in the world. In the February 2011 Vogue portrait of her, “A Rose in the Desert,” Asma al-Assad talked about her goal of encouraging “active citizenship” in young people. “It’s about everyone taking shared responsibility in moving this country forward, about empowerment in a civil society.” You can see why Western critics would be confused. However, the Syrian first couple’s 180-degree turn is by no means unique.
Kim Jong-un’s dictatorship can be somewhat similarly interpreted. Kim Jong-un, having spent part of his childhood in Switzerland, was expected to introduce change to North Korea. Instead, he advanced a nuclear program, founded North Korea’s first ski resort (without ski lifts because of trade sanctions) and water park and befriended Dennis Rodman, while doing nothing to improve the living conditions of people in North Korea. Things could have turned out quite differently for the child brought up in one of the most democratic countries in the world. Though much less is known of Kim Jong-un’s stay in Switzerland, many sources confirm the dictator’s stay at a boarding school outside of Bern. Some claim that he spent around three years there, while others estimate as much as nine years. Reportedly, he “loved playing basketball and watching action movies and was always ‘good for a laugh.’” The child that they believe was in fact Kim Jong-un, was described as “well-integrated, diligent and ambitious.” He spoke German and English at school. If the boy really was Kim Jong-un, “he must have learned a lot about democracy because that is one of the subjects being taught in the 7th and 8th grade,” said a local education director. However, in North Korea, business continues as usual. The similarity between the two Tumblr blogs dedicated to him and his father “looking at things,” is eerie albeit comical evidence of this.
Similar attitudes were also seen in Libya and Egypt. Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and Gamal Mubarak were heir apparents to Libya and Egypt, respectively. Saif received a doctorate from the London School of Economics, and Gamal worked as an investment banker in Bank of America’s London investment office. Saif was hailed “just the sort of modernizer Libya needs” in a 2009 foreign policy article by Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. Two years later, in 2011, he told viewers that “I am in Libya, I am alive and free and willing to fight to the end and take revenge” on the pro-Gaddafi Alrai TV channel. This bloodthirsty remark doesn’t fit with the image of a “modernizer” and pro-democratic reformer, and suggests that he never truly believed what he preached. The International Criminal Court has indicted him for crimes against humanity, including ordering murder, bombing and shooting of protesters. Similarly, Gamal recommended the use of force to quell protesters to the military, and has since been arrested for deep-rooted corruption.
On the other hand, it is not as if there is any automatic correlation between despotism and Western educations. The future will tell if one of the many Western-educated princes of Saudi Arabia will bring reform to their home countries. Similarly, the crown prince and heir apparent of Bahrain has been and is expected to be more reform-friendly considering his western education at American University in Washington D.C. and Cambridge in England. A western-educated king that could serve as an example to other monarchs is the Deerfield-, Sandhurst-, Oxford- and Georgetown- educated King Abdullah of Jordan, who has been instigating significant reform since his coronation in 1999.
The differences we see in outcomes—democratic reforms or a continuation of despotism—might be caused by different human input. A mediocre leader is worse equipped to deal with a deeply backward bureaucracy, and may therefore have more trouble enacting reform. The hereditary nature of power-transfer in authoritarian countries makes it entirely coincidental whether a superb or mediocre leader succeeds to power. Further, changing a status quo takes more than ideals—it takes strong leadership and perseverance. The heir apparent may have neither. This problem, coupled with the very human inclination for self-preservation, naturally leads to a continuation of existing power structures and human rights violations. The failings of individuals, rather the cultures they grew up in or moved to, could be to blame.
What causes core Western ideals to be so easily discarded? It is important to ask ourselves whether Western society is doing something wrong when educating its citizens about democracy and freedom. Perhaps Western society needs to highlight human rights as fundamental to the mechanisms and institutions of democratic government. Otherwise, the ideals seem easy to disregard.