I like the “Power selects for people who are corrupt” hypothesis. A “corrupt” government is, roughly speaking, one that acts in the interest of those doing the governing at the expense of those being governed. The process of maintaining power often requires that those in power act, well, like Stalin did—ruthlessly eliminating any potential opposition in an incredibly brutal and often arbitrary fashion. Consider Saddam Hussein’s rather literal reign of terror in Iraq. Most people hated him, but they were too terrified to take any action against him. Furthermore, he was more than willing to engage in collective punishment, operating by the principle that the deaths of large numbers of “innocent” people is an acceptable price to pay for killing one would-be rebel.
Western democracies have trouble defeating guerrilla tactics. There is, however, a simple and effective way for a conventional army to quickly end a guerrilla uprising: massacre the civilians until the survivors stop fighting back. Saddam did this many times in order to maintain power. If he did not, he would have been replaced by someone else, and that person would likely face the same choice: commit atrocities or lose power. If the only way to maintain power is to commit atrocities, then only those who commit atrocities will have power. (Doug’s rule of war: If a cause is not worth killing enemy civilians for, it’s not worth killing enemy soldiers for, either. As far as I can tell, once war threatens, the only options tend to be paying the Danegeld, destroying populations, or enduring a low-level civil war that never ends.)
I would also claim that, in many places, the only alternative to a brutal dictatorship is anarchy and warfare (usually tribal warfare) in which would-be dictators battle for control. Democracy can only function when people who lose an election prefer losing power to civil war. Even the United States has seen this failure mode. When Abraham Lincoln was elected, the South decided that going to war would be better than allowing the election result to stand.
I like the “Power selects for people who are corrupt” hypothesis. A “corrupt” government is, roughly speaking, one that acts in the interest of those doing the governing at the expense of those being governed. The process of maintaining power often requires that those in power act, well, like Stalin did—ruthlessly eliminating any potential opposition in an incredibly brutal and often arbitrary fashion. Consider Saddam Hussein’s rather literal reign of terror in Iraq. Most people hated him, but they were too terrified to take any action against him. Furthermore, he was more than willing to engage in collective punishment, operating by the principle that the deaths of large numbers of “innocent” people is an acceptable price to pay for killing one would-be rebel.
Western democracies have trouble defeating guerrilla tactics. There is, however, a simple and effective way for a conventional army to quickly end a guerrilla uprising: massacre the civilians until the survivors stop fighting back. Saddam did this many times in order to maintain power. If he did not, he would have been replaced by someone else, and that person would likely face the same choice: commit atrocities or lose power. If the only way to maintain power is to commit atrocities, then only those who commit atrocities will have power. (Doug’s rule of war: If a cause is not worth killing enemy civilians for, it’s not worth killing enemy soldiers for, either. As far as I can tell, once war threatens, the only options tend to be paying the Danegeld, destroying populations, or enduring a low-level civil war that never ends.)
I would also claim that, in many places, the only alternative to a brutal dictatorship is anarchy and warfare (usually tribal warfare) in which would-be dictators battle for control. Democracy can only function when people who lose an election prefer losing power to civil war. Even the United States has seen this failure mode. When Abraham Lincoln was elected, the South decided that going to war would be better than allowing the election result to stand.