Flaws of the autocratic system of government

 

Flaws of the autocratic system of government

Skewed power balance is one of the hallmarks of autocrats. As power is concentrated on the leader, voices of dissent and other views are muffled. This leads to the condition that the autocrat has a disproportionate amount of influence over their followers. The autocrat demands absolute loyalty, complete obedience, and total acceptance of decisions made with no room for negotiation.

Such huge control of others is a bedrock where corruption festers and strives. Since no one would question the autocrat, he assumes the position of utmost high. His utterances are decree and his followers must obey. Decisions that could result in bad consequences do go unchallenged.

This situation often backfires to hurt the autocrat for in the state of assuming a supreme position, poor decisions with dare consequences which normally would be visible to non-autocrats, would be hidden from the autocrat. A lack of objective analysis of decisions becomes a cover to act inappropriately and unfairly. 

In a democratic setting though, decisions are analyzed by the parties involved and the decision repeatedly is the choice of the majority of participants. So also is the consequences shared by the decision-makers. So it is more difficult for the majority to make with unpleasant outcomes. Poor decisions are dealt with objectively and trashed to the bin by the many eyes responsible for the decision. 

The autocratic model of operation gives no chance for comprehensive analysis of the decision to choose the most beneficial and advantageous. The poorly decided decision turns to orders that must be obeyed without questioning.

Autocrats fail to take responsibility for the bad consequences of their poor decisions. Everyone else is blamed but themselves. This is what I call the paradox of living larger than life.

This post is based on the actions of Vladimir Putin, Russia's autocratic President. He failed to thoroughly look at the Ukraine situation before invading. He focused his attention on only one strand of argument. That is Ukraine want to join NATO, NATO is expanding and would likely attack us. We will not have it. We will solve the problem by military exercise and force Ukraine to be a neutral state.

This line of thinking do not accommodate other in-depth analysis. For example, question of what prompts Ukraine's decision to seek NATO membership was not addressed. The answer to this question would give hint to a stark reality that Russia actually is pushing/threatening Ukraine to seek protection from NATO.

Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine and was supporting the breaking away of the Donbas region in Ukraine. These moves would naturally create anxiety in Ukraine and they can not run to Russia for protection. Russia seems to aim at grabbing more of Ukraine's territory, this Ukraine was pushed to seek protection from NATO. 

This simple analysis would have helped Russia to reverse its threatening position and honestly and genuinely assure Ukraine of peaceful co-existence. It could have sought ways to amicably resolve internal squabble in the two regions by deepening the relationship and trade with Ukraine.

Ukraine would have little or no reason to choose to join any defense organization for it would not be necessary. 

Russia could have also asked a broader question that is beyond its relationship with Ukraine. For instance, why does it see NATO as enemy?

This question would explore school if thoughts on:

Is the US, Canada, and other EU member countries that make up the alliance actually aiming at destroying it?

If Russia thinks that NATO is a threat capable of attacking it, then there are amazing options for it on the table. One of the options is understanding that NATO is not as powerful as the rest of humanity. So, it could rally support from humanity by strengthening and deepening the quality and quantity of trade and diplomatic relationships with the rest of the world.

This means being more open in terms of market, communication, and interconnectivity. This move would of course include NATO nations for such deep and positive relationships would refute tension between both parties and the rest of the world. Open communication would be a channel to voice out its fears and concerns. Broad dialogue would result in the signed assurance that NATO countries aren't after it. In fact, by not assuming a threatening position, NATO countries would see no reason to bind up for any defense purpose.

One direction thinking pattern of the autocratic leader of Russia has led to the irreversible and highly damaging decision of invading a nation unprovoked. The stark reality of the decision is now panning out, and yet Putin is yet to accept appropriate responsibility and halt the bad decision.

He is adamant and continues to blame everyone else aside from himself.

 Unfortunately, Russia would pay dearly and the poor people would partake in the consequences which would last a pretty long time.

Russia and Ukraine would be in hostility for a very long time. Russia would have to pay for the damages done if it wants to ever regain some of the positions it had before the invasion.

Russia has created itself to be an unrestrained initiator of violence which puts it in a position of no trust. Any country associating with Russia has to be careful with such a relationship that could easily spill into violence. Russia is a rogue state presently.

To wipe itself from this smear that it is now, Russia has to completely adopt full-scale democratic principles. Open to market, open governance, equality and liberty, and a genuine accommodating attitude towards everyone.