The Ju Gong Fable

"On the never never land, a country is teetering on the edge of a civil war, because of fraudulent elections, almost all parties refuses to accept election results.

Armed insurgents invade the capitol, threaten violence and are ultimately overpowered. But intelligence shows that they may be planning another attack.

The country’s leaders ask for advice in how to handle the violence.

One party yells, 'Impeach the outgoing president during his final week in office!'

But other parties plead for unity while still refusing to acknowledge the election.

One man looks out at the scene of thousands of military troops forced to sleep in the capitol to protect it, heads resting on cold hard floor, and immediately advises the president that we need to call up even more troops and impose martial law.

'And what is your background?' the president asks. 'Are you a homeland security expert? Or a military general with experience in revolutions?'

'No,' the man answers. 'I’m a pillow salesman,'" said the Moon when she began to carry out her duties, after saying Basmalah and Salaam.

The Moon then said, "Achieving a society with both freedom and peace is of course,  full of challenges. It will require great strategic skill, organization, and planning. Above all, it will require power.

In countries controlled by authoritarians or dictatorships, hoping to overthrow them and establish political freedom, require democratic enforcers, an ability to apply their own power effectively. But is this possible? What kind of power can the democratic opposition mobilize that will be sufficient to destroy the dictatorship and its vast military and police networks?

There are a number of ways that scholars define an authoritarian regime. As Erica Frantz mentions, A regime is authoritarian if the executive achieved power through undemocratic means, that is, any means besides direct relatively free and fair elections; or if the executive achieved power via free and fair elections, but later changed the rules such that subsequent electoral competition (whether legislative or executive) was limited. Electoral fraud, in fact, will lead to an authoritarian regime. Authoritarian regimes, wrote Juan Linz, are political systems with limited, not responsible political pluralism; without elaborate and guiding ideology (but with distinctive mentalities); without intensive nor extensive political mobilization (except some points of their development); and in which a leader (or occasionally a small group) exercises power within formally ill-defned limits but actually quite predictable ones.

This definition is roughly echoed by Samuel Huntington, who writes that authoritarian regimes are characterized by a single leader or group of leaders, with either no party or a weak party, little mass mobilization, and limited political pluralism. Adam Przeworski, when talking about democracy and dictatorship, says: 'democracies are regimes in which 'those who govern are selected through contested elections; dictatorships are 'not democracies.'

As we all know, Dictatorship developed as a major form of government in the 19th century. Dictatorship, a form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. The Dictator was a public office in the Roman Republic. In times of crisis, the government appointed a Dictator of Rome who was given extensive abilities to address said crisis, which was his chief responsibility. By tradition, the Dictator could only serve a brief term in office (some have suggested six months as the term) and was expected to resign as soon as the crisis was addressed. These limitations were implemented to prevent Rome from sliding into a monarchy. In the Roman Republic's closing decades, the position of Dictator was abused by men such as Sulla and Caesar, who used the office for self-aggrandizement. This abuse frayed the Republic's institutions and led to the emperors' rise.

The three world top dictators are Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler. During the 20th century, some dictators name can be mentioned, among others, Juan Perón (1895–1974) of Argentina, Fulgencio Batista (1901–1973) of Cuba, François Duvalier (1907–1971) of Haiti, Anastasio Somoza (1896–1956) of Nicaragua, and Alfredo Stroessner (1912–2006) of Paraguay.

Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski, highlight six features of totalitarian dictatorships. These features are: the implementation of an official ideology, a single political party, party control over mass communications, party control over the military, a central economy, and a secret police. In later work, Brzezinski defines totalitarianism as a new form of government that seeks to bring about a social revolution, based on the ideological assumptions declared by the leadership. In totalitarian regimes, power is 'wielded without restraint.' The main goal of the leadership is to achieve the total unity of society and politicization of the populace via political organizations. These means are achieved through propaganda and terror. The leader has greater power than the party or security apparatus and typically possesses religious or charismatic appeal. Examples cited include Nazi Germany, Communist Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, and Communist China.

There are key factors that distinguish totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, the degree of social pluralism and levels of political mobilization. Linz argues that authoritarian regimes are characterized by a mentality, whereas totalitarian regimes are characterized by an ideological belief system. The main goals of authoritarian regimes are political demobilization and depoliticization. Authoritarian regimes do not seek to homogenize society and instead allow for some degree of pluralism. By contrast, totalitarian regimes place great emphasis on political mobilization and use ideology as a main source of their legitimacy.

Why does dictatorships appear? According to Natasha Ezrow and Erica Frantz, Institutional factors may be the first reason. Governments with low levels of institutionalization are in states of political decay, characterized by high levels of corruption, the blurring of private and public in government, lack of civil associations, and an absence of political consensus. Such scenarios lead to “ungovernability” and the unfeasibility of democracy. Secondly, for Seymour Martin Lipset, economic and demographic factors explain why some countries are democratic and others are not. In particular, urbanization, industrialization, education, and healthy populations all lead to pressures within a country to democratize. 'Modernization' of society makes democracy more likely by leading to a change in the mentality of citizens. Absent such societal characteristics, dictatorship will persist. Third, Barrington Moore highlights how the presence of a large middle class is favorable to democratization. He points to the critical role of the established, landed upper class and the peasantry during countries’ transitions from agrarian to industrial societies in determining the type of political system that takes shape. Democracy is most likely to emerge where there are groups in society that have independent economic bases, i.e. where there is a middle class. Fourth, the Role of Ethnicity. A handful of scholars have sought to disentangle the role of ethnicity in determining regime type. Donald Horowitz claims that ethnic cleavages and diversity are obstacles for countries attempting to democratize.

Natasha Ezra and Erica Frantz further suggest forms of dictatorship. Military dictatorships begin with the military executing (or threatening to execute) a coup d'état. Or Single-party dictatorships arise under a variety of circumstances. Or Personalist dictatorships typically emerge following seizures of power in which the co-conspirators are not organized tightly, enabling the leader to maximize power. Or Monarchies which differ from other forms of dictatorship, in that they involve institutionalized hereditary rule, often rooted in the historical legacies of family bloodlines. The leadership pool is comprised of the royal family, rather than a military or party institution.

There are interesting things in the discussion presented by Gene Sharp (2010), about dictatorship and political power. Liu-Ji, give an example, says Sharp, to understand political power. The fourteenth century Chinese parable goes like this,

In the feudal state of Chu, an old man survived by keeping monkeys in his service. The people of Chu called him 'ju gong' (monkey master).

Each morning, the old man would assemble the monkeys in his courtyard, and order the eldest one to lead the others to the mountains to gather fruits from bushes and trees.

It was the rule that each monkey had to give one-tenth of his collection to the old man. Those who failed to do so would be ruthlessly flogged. All the monkeys suffered bitterly, but dared not complain.

One day, a small monkey asked the other monkeys, 'Did the old man plant all the fruit trees and bushes?' The others said, 'No, they grew naturally.' The small monkey further asked. 'Can’t we take the fruits without the old man’s permission?' The others replied. 'Yes, we all can.'

The small monkey continued. 'Then, why should we depend on the old man; why must we all serve him?'

Before the small monkey was able to finish his statement, all the monkeys suddenly became enlightened and awakened.

On the same night, watching that the old man had fallen asleep, the monkeys tore down all the barricades of the stockade in which they were confined, and destroyed the stockade entirely. They also took the fruits the old man had in storage, brought all with them to the woods, and never returned. The old man finally died of starvation.

This story, originally titled 'Rule by Tricks' is from Yu-li-zi by Liu Ji (1311-1375). Yu-li-zi is also the pseudonym of Liu Ji. He comment the story, 'Some men in the world rule their people by tricks and not by righteous principles. Aren’t they just like the monkey master? They are not aware of their muddleheadedness. As soon as their people become enlightened, their tricks no longer work.'

Then Sharp answers the previous questions. That the answers lie in an oft ignored understanding of political power. Learning this insight is not really so difficult a task. The principle is simple, says Sharp. Dictators require the assistance of the people they rule, without which they cannot secure and maintain the sources of political power. These sources of political power include,

Authority, the belief among the people that the regime is legitimate, and that they have a moral duty to obey it;

Human resources, the number and importance of the persons and groups which are obeying, cooperating, or providing assistance to the rulers;

Skills and knowledge, needed by the regime to perform specific actions and supplied by the cooperating persons and groups;

Intangible factors, psychological and ideological factors that may induce people to obey and assist the rulers;

Material resources, the degree to which the rulers control or have access to property, natural resources, financial resources, the economic system, and means of communication and transportation; and,

Sanctions, punishments, threatened or applied, against the disobedient and noncooperative to ensure the submission and cooperation that are needed for the regime to exist and carry out its policies.

All of these sources, however, depend on acceptance of the regime, on the submission and obedience of the population, and on the cooperation of innumerable people and the many institutions of the society. These are not guaranteed.

Full cooperation, obedience, and support will increase the availability of the needed sources of power and, consequently, expand the power capacity of any government.

On the other hand, withdrawal of popular and institutional cooperation with aggressors and dictators diminishes, and may sever, the availability of the sources of power on which all rulers depend. Without availability of those sources, the rulers’ power weakens and finally dissolves.

Naturally, dictators are sensitive to actions and ideas that threaten their capacity to do as they like. Dictators are therefore likely to threaten and punish those who disobey, strike, or fail to cooperate. However, that is not the end of the story. Repression, even brutalities, do not always produce a resumption of the necessary degree of submission and cooperation for the regime to function.

If, despite repression, the sources of power can be restricted or severed for enough time, the initial results may be uncertainty and confusion within the dictatorship. That is likely to be followed by a clear weakening of the power of the dictatorship. Over time, the withholding of the sources of power can produce the paralysis and impotence of the regime, and in severe cases, its disintegration. The dictators’ power will die, slowly or rapidly, from political starvation.

The degree of liberty or tyranny in any government is, it follows, in large degree a reflection of the relative determination of the subjects to be free and their willingness and ability to resist efforts to enslave them.

Contrary to popular opinion, says Sharp, even totalitarian dictatorships are dependent on the population and the societies they rule. As the political scientist Karl W. Deutsch noted in 1953,

'Totalitarian power is strong only if it does not have to be used too often. If totalitarian power must be used at all times against the entire population, it is unlikely to remain powerful for long. Since totalitarian regimes require more power for dealing with their subjects than do other types of government, such regimes stand in greater need of widespread and dependable compliance habits among their people; more than that they have to be able to count on the active support of at least significant parts of the population in case of need.'

The English Nineteenth Century legal theorist, John Austin, described the situation of a dictatorship confronting a disaffected people. Austin argued that if most of the population were determined to destroy the government and were willing to endure repression to do so, then the might of the government, including those who supported it, could not preserve the hated government, even if it received foreign assistance. The defiant people could not be forced back into permanent obedience and subjection.

Niccolo Machiavelli had much earlier argued that the prince '... who has the public as a whole for his enemy can never make himself secure; and the greater his cruelty, the weaker does his regime become.'

Therefore, says Sharp, three of the most important factors in determining to what degree a government’s power will be controlled or uncontrolled are:

(1) the relative desire of the populace to impose limits on the government’s power;

(2) the relative strength of the subjects’ independent organizations and institutions to withdraw collectively the sources of power; and

(3) the population’s relative ability to withhold their consent and assistance.

Are there features characterized a democratic society? One characteristic of a democratic society, says Sharp, is that there exist independent of the state a multitude of nongovernmental groups and institutions. These include, for example, families, religious organizations, cultural associations, sports clubs, economic institutions, trade unions, student associations, political parties, villages, neighborhood associations, gardening clubs, human rights organizations, musical groups, literary societies, and others. These bodies are important in serving their own objectives and also in helping to meet social needs.

Additionally, these bodies have great political significance. They provide group and institutional bases by which people can exert influence over the direction of their society and resist other groups or the government when they are seen to impinge unjustly on their interests, activities, or purposes. Isolated individuals, not members of such groups, usually are unable to make a significant impact on the rest of the society, much less a government, and certainly not a dictatorship.

Consequently, if the autonomy and freedom of such bodies can be taken away by the dictators, the population will be relatively helpless. Also, if these institutions can themselves be dictatorially controlled by the central regime or replaced by new controlled ones, they can be used to dominate both the individual members and also those areas of the society.

However, if the autonomy and freedom of these independent civil institutions (outside of government control) can be maintained or regained they are highly important for the application of political defiance.

These centers of power provide the institutional bases from which the population can exert pressure or can resist dictatorial controls. In the future, they will be part of the indispensable structural base for a free society. Their continued independence and growth therefore is often a prerequisite for the success of the liberation struggle. If the dictatorship has been largely successful in destroying or controlling the society’s independent bodies, it will be important for the resisters to create new independent social groups and institutions, or to reassert democratic control over surviving or partially controlled bodies."

"And finally, before I go," said the Moon, let me tell you this, Jerzy J. Wiatr when talking about New Authoritarianism in 21th Century, says that the crucial problem for new authoritarian regimes is how to consolidate the new system. In democracy, parties get used to the fact of political rotation. Since they respect the rules of democracy, they do not fear electoral defeat, knowing that with the passing of time they would have their second chance. The authoritarian leaders are in a different position. The more they consolidate their hold on state power by legal or extra-legal means, the more reasons they have to fear defeat. Therefore, they have strong interest in fortifying their political position so that their removal from power would be very diffcult, if not impossible.

There are three crucial elements in this process. First, they have to establish political control over the judiciary to prevent independent courts from questioning their power. This is being done by a combination of new laws and of buying support of some of the judges.

Second, they have to put their hand on mass media, particularly those which give them access to the less educated strata. Television and survey–much more than the printed media–is particularly important since it is the primary source of political information for the less educated. It is true that today, with the free access to internet, it is more diffcult to establish full control over the exchange of information and of opinions, but the extent to which internet is being used varies depending on education and social status.

Third, the new authoritarian regimes buy support of the poorer strata by adopting populist social and economic strategies of redistribution. Even if, as it is the case in Russia, they tolerate or even support oligarchs, they make systematic effort to improve the economic situation of the poorer strata–something that many of the previous liberal governments neglected.

In addition to these three policies, common for all new authoritarian regimes, there have been nation-specifc policies refecting specifc conditions of various countries. And Allah knows best."

Time to go, and the Moon sang,

I want to ride my bicycle

I want to ride my bike

I want to ride my bicycle

I want to ride it where I like *)

Citations & References:
- Gene sharp, From Dictatorship to Democracy, 2010, the Albert Einstein Institution
- Natasha M. Ezrow & Erica Frantz, Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders, 2011, The Continuum International Publishing Group
- Jerzy J. Wiatr (ed.), New Authoritarianism Challenges to Democracy in the 21st century, 2019, Barbara Budrich Publishers
- Barbara Geddes, Joseph Wright & Erica Frantz, How Dictatorships Work: Power, Personalization, and Collapse, 2018, Cambridge University Press
*) "Bicycle Race" written by Freddie Mercury

Bahasa