By Henry Kyambalesa
Abstract
Essentially, this article is designed to render an opinion concerning the decision by Russia’s incumbent president, Vladimir Putin, to order his country’s military forces to invade Ukraine. Specifically, the following themes are discussed in the article: (a) Putin and other tyrants; (b) the fate of previous despots; (c) Putin—a danger to all; and (d) taming the autocrats through multi-party systems of governance, by vigilant citizens, and through exemplary leadership by leaders in democratic countries.
1. Introduction
Running a country can be likened to running in a relay race—one executive president or prime minister runs his or her portion of the race and hands the button to the next, and each one is expected to try very hard to steer the country to a better future.
Some executive presidents and prime ministers, in this endeavor, contribute more, and some others contribute less.
In this regard, each and every country’s executive president or prime minister needs to possess leadership qualities that all national political leaders worldwide need to have in their arsenal of aptitudes.
Such qualities include emotional stability, humility, patriotism, selflessness, impartiality, patience, compassion, tolerance, diligence, respect for both national and international laws, ability to think of one’s leadership position as a temporary mandate to serve the people, ability to conceive of oneself as just another mortal with limited knowledge and aptitudes, ability to make compromises with people who have dissenting views, and an inclination to work hand in hand and hand in glove with other countries’ leaders in addressing pressing global issues and challenges.
However, some executive presidents and prime ministers—autocrats particularly—have tended to pursue causes that are unmistakably inimical to their countries, their fellow citizens, and to peace-loving nations worldwide.
Apparently, they delight in causing wanton and unprecedented human suffering and massive deaths in invaded countries, and destruction of economic infrastructure in countries they order their military forces to invade.
What is the rationale for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
It is currently not clear why Putin has found it necessary to invade Ukraine. However, one may discern the reason(s) from Putin’s speeches and statements as being the following:
(a) To establish a Russian empire similar to the former Soviet Union by annexing Ukraine and other neighboring countries that were part of the USSR.
(b) To halt the eastward expansion of NATO, a defensive alliance that does not apparently pose any threat to non-member countries, including Russia.
(c) To punish Ukraine for alleged genocide committed against ethnic Russians living within its borders.
(d) To incorporate Ukraine into the Russian Federation, because the country is allegedly “an integral part of [Russia’s] … history, culture, spiritual space.” And/or
(e) To overthrow the current Ukrainian government that is assumed to be more friendly to Western countries and establish a pro-Russia government.
2. Putin and other Tyrants
Examples of such reckless, egoistic, barbaric, demented, and good-for-nothing leaders abound—leaders who are oblivious to: (a) their own mortality; (b) crippling economic sanctions intended to be leveled against them and their cohorts; (c) the potential human carnage that could result from their wicked decisions and activities; (d) the destruction of other countries’ economic infrastructure; and (e) the dictates of international law and order.
They include the following:
(a) Vladimir Putin, who recently sanctioned a military operation in Ukraine and launched a full-scale invasion of the country;
(b) Alexander Lukashenko, who heads an authoritarian government in Belarus, and who has publicly referred to himself as “Europe’s last dictator,” and is Putin’s only cheerleader who has offered his country as an additional launching pad for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine;
(c) Saddam Hussein, who, among other atrocities, invaded Kuwait and proclaimed the country to be Iraq’s 19th province;
(d) Adolf Hitler, who ordered German military forces to attack the Soviet Union in order to destroy the country and seize its natural resources for use in subsequent aggression against Western countries, and also murdered around 6 million Jews; and
(e) Benito Mussolini, whose foreign policy was aimed at restoring the ancient and former Roman Empire by expanding Italy’s colonial possessions and the fascist sphere of influence.
These leaders, among many others, have displayed the worst diabolical, chilling and primitive instincts of Homo sapiens—or humankind, to use a more generic term.
Apparently, they could not suppress their primitive, crude, savage, and evil impulses, and, intoxicated by unfettered political power and backed by docile military officers, they could not guard themselves against committing heinous atrocities against humanity.
The military officers were “docile” in the sense that they “decided” to comply with orders to invade other countries for reasons that, apparently, were hardly in the best interest of their countries and the general public, but for narcissistic reasons, or to bolster the macho and self-esteem postures of their commanders-in-chief.
Diplomacy, dialogue, adherence to international law and order, and cooperative efforts in addressing global issues and challenges are unacceptable to such demented predators and rabble-rousers. And, unfortunately, there seem to be no obvious and viable ways and means of preventing them from actualizing their wicked impulses!
3. The Fate of Previous Despots
Ultimately, Adolf Hitler, upon learning that his ally, Benito Mussolini, had been executed by Italian partisans on April 29, 1945, committed suicide by gunshot on April 30, 1945 in Berlin, Germany. The bodies of Mussolini and his mistress, Clara Petacci, had been strung up by their heels. Their corpses were later cast onto the ground, where they were mocked by Italian dissidents.
These events may have prompted Hitler to kill himself. His wife, Eva Braun, who he had married only forty hours earlier, also committed suicide with him by taking cyanide. Their remains were carried up the stairs through his bunker’s emergency exit, doused in petrol, and set alight in the Reich Chancellery garden outside the bunker. Several assassination attempts between 1932 and 1945 aimed at getting rid of him failed.
Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, went into hiding in March 2003 when U.S.-led armed forces invaded his country. On December 13, 2003, U.S. soldiers found him hiding in a six-to-eight-foot deep hole, nine miles outside his hometown of Tikrit. He was tried, convicted and later executed on December 30, 2006 for crimes against his people and against humanity. During his 24 years in office prior to March 2003, his secret police, assigned to protect him, terrorized and abused the rights and freedoms of Iraq citizens.
The “evil” and “feral-eyed” man, to use the words of Mitt Romney,[1] a U.S. Congressman and former U.S. presidential candidate, Vladimir Putin should be aware of the impending bitter consequences for the atrocious crimes he is willfully committing against Ukrainians in particular, and humanity in general.
Born out of flesh, like other dictators before him who were harshly rebuked and humiliated for committing horrendous crimes against humanity, Putin should not think that he is untouchable, and that the likes of Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were not “smart” and “savvy” enough.
Let us now remove the “crippling economic sanctions intended to be leveled against them and their cohorts” from the considerations cited earlier. Any sober and sane human being would have considered the other considerations—that is, their own mortality, the potential human carnage, the destruction of other countries’ economic infrastructure, and the dictates of international law and order—and cautioned themselves against the invasion of other countries.
4. Putin—A Danger to All
After several decades of relative tranquility in Eastern and Western Europe, Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine must have come as an unpleasant surprise to many. It has certainly been a “nightmare or bad dream come true,” so to speak.
Russians should not conceive of their President as a threat and danger to other countries—he is a threat and a danger to them as well. If he decides to launch nuclear attacks on other countries, for example, they will perish when the other countries launch nuclear attacks on their country in retaliation.
If Putin had any genuine issues or problems with Ukraine and/or its leaders, he should have shown some respect for the U.N. by presenting his or his country’s grievances to the multilateral institution to have the issues or problems resolved.
It is highly improbable that he has suddenly become senile. Or does he now have amnesia, such that he could not remember that the resolution of disputes between and/or among countries is one of the most important roles of the United Nations?
5. Taming the Autocrats
It is perhaps important to advise current and future executive presidents and prime ministers that, apart from being judged or labeled as being dreadfully wicked, there is really nothing good that can be achieved by political leaders who are patently cruel, arrogant, stubborn, and/or indifferent to extensive human suffering.
By the way, very few people, if any, are likely to be impressed by political leaders who order their countries’ military forces to invade other countries. In the United States, for example, only one prominent citizen and former U.S. president, Mr. Donald J. Trump, was reported in the news media in late February 2022 as having stated that Russian president Vladimir Putin was “smart,” “savvy” and “a genius” for having ordered the invasion of Ukraine.[2]
In early March 2022, several individuals floated the following suggestions on how to end the wicked and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine conceived and sanctioned by Vladimir Putin:
(a) Lindsey Graham, a U.S. Senator, tweeted the following: “The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country—and the world—a great service.”
(b) Sean Hannity, a Fox News host in the U.S., floated the idea that Putin should be assassinated during a March 2nd episode of his podcast, “The Sean Hannity Show.” And
(c) Alex Konanykhin, a Russian businessman and U.S.-based crypto investor, put a US$1 million bounty on Putin’s head, calling for military officers to arrest him as a war criminal.
The ensuing sub-sections are devoted to a survey of the following: (a) the role of a multi-party system of governance in mitigating the potential for political leaders to abuse the power they wield; (b) the role citizens can individually and collectively play in taming the wild and wicked instincts of their leaders; and (c) the role political leaders in democratic countries can play in mitigating the potential for autocrats to pursue unilateral and implacable causes of action.
5.1 Multi-Party Politics:
In the 21st Century, the need for each and every sovereign nation-state worldwide to create and/or earnestly embrace an electoral system that provides for multi-party politics cannot perhaps be overemphasized. In the absence of multi-party politics, it would be folly for any given country to claim to have a genuine democratic system of government.
Countries which have single-party political systems of government, for example, can generally be said to be dictatorships. And countries which have two political parties can be said to be pseudo democracies. This includes the United States of America, which elects the President on the basis of the results of the Electoral College[3] rather than on the basis of the popular vote that would directly bestow the presidency upon the candidate who would secure at least 51% of votes cast during any given national election.
In this regard, if none of numerous candidates sponsored by various political parties garners at least 51% of the popular vote, two of the candidates with the highest number of votes would be required to face each other in a re-run.[4] The candidate who would secure at least 51% of the vote during the re-run would be afforded the opportunity to form government.
(Note: In countries where executive presidents or prime ministers are elected through the popular vote, the candidates for such positions are initially elected at their political parties’ conventions and eventually fielded in national elections.)
Although the United States has at least 50 registered political parties, the Electoral College system of electing the country’s presidents provides for only two presidential candidates to compete for 538 electoral votes, and for the winner of the presidency to secure at least 270 of the electoral votes.
Historically, the two presidential candidates have generally been nominees of the country’s dominant political parties—that is, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Consequently, the country’s dichotomous political-party system has tended to be characterized by extreme, hostile and disconcerting partisan rancor pitting “Democrats v. Republicans,” “Liberals v. Conservatives” or “the Left v. the Right”—such as that exhibited during the 2019/2020 impeachment proceedings concerning President Donald J. Trump.
The partisan nature of the outcome of the country’s three presidential impeachment proceedings is, by and large, a reflection of the dichotomous political-party system of electing the President. Kilgore has discreetly summed up the explicit, inflexible and ferocious partisanship that characterized the three impeachment proceedings in the following words:
“Yes, Trump’s Impeachment Was Partisan. The Others [President Andrew Johnson in 1868 and President Bill Clinton in 1998] Were Too.”[5]
Nevertheless, the United States can be characterized as essentially being the only and exceptional example of a free-market socioeconomic system in the world today because it has complete private ownership of the means of production and an extensive pluralistic social system. However, it should perhaps not be regarded as the kind of “democracy” that could be emulated by other countries due to the fact that it does not have a robust and an authentic multi-party political system.
Besides, the two dominant political parties in the country do not adequately represent the divergent political persuasions and/or ideological inclinations of the country’s approximately 230 million citizens. This, among other reasons, should perhaps explain why politicians in the United States should heed the following pieces of advice:
“It’s high time for America to join the majority of the world’s democracies by giving a multi-party system a chance.”[6]
“The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately. Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts.”[7]
“I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people [in electing the President] and, to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”[8]
“The two-party system is destroying America. Democrats and Republicans are in a death match and the American people are caught in the middle. The nation faces all sorts of serious problems … but the bitter fight between Democrats and Republicans has [often undermined politicians’ ability to address] … issues facing the nation.”[9]
And
“[A modest multiparty democracy with three to seven political parties performs better than a two-party democracy]. Such a party system regularizes cross-partisan compromise and coalition building. Since parties need to work together to govern, more viewpoints are likely to be considered. The resulting policies are more likely to be broadly inclusive, and broadly legitimate, making voters happier with the outcomes.”[10]
The U.S. Congress can change the country’s binary electoral system through a vote designed to amend the Constitution by adopting the “popular vote” to replace the “Electoral College” as the means for electing the President. The amendment would need to be accompanied by a set of guidelines designed to ensure that political parties function as instruments for fostering democracy, diversity, patriotism, civility, and national unity.
The following provides a good example of a set of important guidelines that could be considered in this regard:[11]
A Political Party SHALL—
(a) Be officially registered with appropriate government agencies and/or departments;
(b) Promote the values and principles specified in the Constitution;
(c) Have a national character;
(d) Promote and uphold national unity;
(e) Promote and practice democracy through regular, free and fair elections within the party; and
(f) Respect the right of its members to seek redress from a court or tribunal when aggrieved by any given decision of the political party.
A Political Party Shall NOT—
(a) Be founded on a religious, linguistic, racial, ethnic, tribal, gender, sectoral, or provincial basis, or engage in any kind of propaganda that would be deemed to be based on any of these factors;
(b) Engage in or instigate violence, or intimidate any segment of its members, supporters, opponents, or any other members of society; and/or
(c) Engage in corrupt practices.
5.2 Role of the Citizenry:
A country’s citizens can also play a vital role in the process of creating a peaceful and stable socioeconomic setting that would have little or no potential to give the mandate to leaders with despotic tendencies to form government. They can do so in several ways.
During local and national elections, for example, they need to put personal, ethnic, and partisan interests aside and reflect more seriously on the goals political contestants promise to pursue during their terms of office if they get elected.
Several goals should be expected to be on the agenda of every aspirant for political office and should constitute the bottom line for assessing the quality and vision of all candidates. These are:
(a) Provision of accessible and quality education, vocational training, and healthcare;
(b) Creation of an economy that has the capacity to generate abundant employment opportunities and a cornucopia of goods and services for both local and export markets;
(c) Generation of programs intended to benefit children, elderly citizens, and the handicapped;
(d) Creation of a truly free and just legal system that is committed to the preservation and protection of every individual’s fundamental rights and freedoms;[12]
(e) Provision of essential public services and facilities, including an efficient transport system, adequate public safety and security, and improved supply of public utilities;
(f) Promotion and preservation of cherished traditional and cultural values, including the promotion and consolidation of national unity;
(g) Conservation and protection of natural resources so that they can last from generation to generation;
(h) Restructuring of the government machinery so that it can be more responsive to the development needs of a country without over-burdening taxpayers; and
(i) Generation of a foreign policy whose overall goal is to work hand in hand with other peace-loving nations in creating a more tempered global community.
How a political party or candidate intends to achieve these goals, considering a country’s or municipality’s limited financial and other critical resources, should be the overriding reason to align oneself with the party or candidate. A patriotic citizen—one who has the interest of his or her country at heart—would be at pains to succumb to personal, ethnic, partisan, and/or other parochial interests.
Also, a country’s citizens can, individually and collectively, advocate for reforms in the structure and modalities of governance in their home countries by participating actively in mass demonstrations, protects and/or rallies in public squares.
Besides, they can advocate for reforms in the structure and modalities of governance in other countries by locally staging mass demonstrations, protects and/or rallies in public squares.
Moreover, they can, through mass demonstrations, protects and/or rallies in public squares, demand that any suggested amendments to their countries’ national Constitutions, or to the national Constitutions of other countries, should be made only through a national referendum, and after an exhaustive and broad-based debate relating to the amendments.
5.3 Leaders in Democratic Nations
Political leaders in democratic countries need to refrain from making unilateral declarations of disputed lands or territories as belonging to one country or another in order to dissuade autocrats from mimicking them. Former U.S. president, Mr. Donald J. Trump, for example, should have refrained from making the following declarations:
(a) In December 2017, he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel rather than Tel Aviv, the country’s capital, and moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, despite the international community viewing East Jerusalem as under Israeli military occupation. And
(b) On March 25, 2019, he recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel through a presidential proclamation. The proclamation made the U.S. the first country to recognize Israeli rather than Syrian sovereignty over the disputed Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria in 1967.
They also need to guard against the temptation of unilaterally withdrawing their countries from multilateral institutions, agencies or treaties in order to foster the need for citizen participation in governmental decision making either indirectly through their representatives in the legislature or, preferably, directly through referenda.
Mr. Donald J. Trump, again, should have refrained from making such decisions and declarations as the following:
(a) In June 2017, he announced his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement;
(b) In June 2018, his administration withdrew the U.S. from the U.N. Human Rights Council;
(c) In October 2018, his administration withdrew the U.S. from the International Court of Justice (ICJ); and
(d) In July 2020, his administration officially notified UN Secretary-General of its intention to withdraw from U.N. World Health Organization (WHO) membership.
Since there was no widespread uproar or condemnation of any of the foregoing decisions and proclamations, Russia’s Vladimir Putin must have used Mr. Trump’s playbook to recognize, on February 21, 2022, two separatist regions in eastern Ukraine—that is, the “Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic—as independent and sovereign nations.
——————–
Keywords:
Alex Konanykhin, Adolf Hitler, Alexander Lukashenko, Benito Mussolini, Donald J. Trump, Lindsey Graham, Multi-party politics, Saddam Hussein, Sean Hannity, Ukraine invasion, Vladimir Putin
———————
Endnotes:
1. Moore, Mark, “Putin Derided As ‘Delusional’ and ‘Small, Feral-Eyed Man’ by Current, Former US Officials,” New York Post:
https://nypost.com/2022/02/27/putin-derided-as-delusional-and-small-feral-eyed-man-by-current-former-us-officials/, February 27, 2022.
2. For example, see Palmer, Ewan, “Donald Trump Praises ‘Very Smart’ Putin During Mar-a-Lago Fundraiser,” Newsweek:
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-praise-putin-smart-war-ukraine-invasion-1682182, February 24, 2022.
3. The term “Electoral College” refers to a body or group of 538 people or electors provided for in the U.S. Constitution and that is tasked with the responsibility for electing the country’s president and vice president. The 538 electoral votes represent the 435 Congregational Representatives from the country’s 50 States, 100 Senators elected from the country’s 50 States, and 3 electors given to the District of Columbia.
4. In some pseudo democracies, the candidate with a simple majority of less than 51% of the popular vote would win the presidency.
5. Kilgore, Ed, “Yes, Trump’s Impeachment Was Partisan. The Others [President Andrew Johnson in 1868 and President Bill Clinton in 1998] Were, Too,” New York Magazine:
http://nymag.com/, December 18, 2019.
6. Eckhardt, Rachel, “The More the Merrier: Would a Multi-Party System Work in America?” HuffPost: https://www.huffpost.com/, December 6, 2017.
7. Boxer, Barbara, quoted by Pedersen, Erik, “Barbara Boxer Launching Senate Bill to Abolish Electoral College,” Deadline:
https://deadline.com/, November 15, 2016.
8. Clinton, Hillary R., quoted by Merica, Dan, “Clinton: It’s Time to Abolish the Electoral College,” CNN: https://www.cnn.com/, September 14, 2017.
9. Coblenz, Michael, “The Two-Party System Is Destroying America,” The Hill: https://thehill.com/, January 28, 2016.
10. Drutman, Lee, “Let a Thousand Parties Bloom: The Only Way to Prevent America’s Two-Party System from Succumbing to Extremism Is to Scrap It Altogether,” https://foreignpolicy.com/, October 19, 2019.
11. Excerpted and adapted from Article 60 of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment), Number 2 of 2016, Clauses 2 and 3.
12. In December 1948, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted and proclaimed what is referred to as the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” which stipulates the rights and freedoms of all individuals worldwide. According to the Declaration, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and have the rights and freedoms stipulated in the Articles of the Declaration.
—————
About the Author: The author, Henry Kyambalesa, is a retired Zambian academic.
