The Middle East Journal Meant for Personal Research Work
This article captures a story Hafiz Al-Asad who died in 2000 following 30 years in Middle East. Additionally, the article aims at making clear the meaning of authoritarian power. Soon after the death of Hafiz al-Asad, his son Bashar was inaugurated to be the president of Syria. This action elaborates hereditary style of leadership where only a particular family in the society merits to produce leaders. Furthermore, the article sites on various occasions where specific weaknesses related to such a style of leadership are repeatedly observed. Through a careful examination of the inconsistency in the country’s succession, a lot of limitations are highlighted of individual leadership. From the article, hereditary style of leadership appears as a platform for authoritarian leadership. The article inseminates various instances when Syria had continuous wars with Israel and other civil wars, the then president of Syria Al- Asad only concentrated on hardening the state security. The other regions were neglected. This action was repeated even during the pan-Arab vicious competition. The entire actions show how hereditary style of leadership is expounded on as a tool for selfish ambitions in the society.
Based on the literature of Syria, it is revealed that the Syrian natives are fed up with the authoritarian leadership. In fact, the best thing they advocate for is a strong representative leadership that can grant them democracy. The Syrians believe in a leader who could oversee regime turn over by offsetting early proclivity of the state. The negative effects of hereditary succession leadership styles are further evident in Al-Asad’s reign. As shown in the article, the president came from a small state making up the minority referred to as Alawi sect. Through his influence, personal type of rule is well expounded on in respect to the framework provided.
The most pronounced scene of authoritarian leadership in connection to hereditary leadership was well shown after the death of Al-Asad. During this particular time, there was a lot of controversial oppositions to his son’s ascendance to power. Some Syrian citizens strongly opposed hereditary while others accepted it. In response to this, news about the president’s death was not channeled to the media until five hours later. After this happening, all public reports were banned so as not to invite controversies pertaining to succession. It was, however, well known that hereditary leadership was not liked by many. With the help of the military forces, a lot of changes were made in favor of Bashar who was then made the commander-in-chief of all the Syrian government. The entire process totally showed authoritarian leadership style in action.
As a result of the entire occurrences, Syria is seen to be the first Arab hereditary republic in the world. Immediately after the death of the president, the parliament convenes to amend section 38 of the constitution so as to lower the eligible president’s age from 40 years to 34. This is done in favor of Bashar who was only 34 then. Throughout his leadership, Bashar acts just like his father in exercising authoritarian and personal rule in Syria.
Various Leadership Styles Evident in the State Institutions
The most immediate leadership style expressed in this article is dictatorship. Based on the common perception and regression regimes, dictatorship is a situation in leadership where power solely lies in the hands of a single person. This style of leadership does not rely on any form of political institution whatsoever. Another name for dictatorship is authoritative leadership style. It is evident in the article that the authoritative leadership style provides political parties with opportunities to share powers between the elites and leaders. Dictatorship is well expounded on in the article to steadily give room for democracy. Democracy captures permission of political party formation and legislatures.
In this article, the author confers with the information relating to both dictatorship and democracy. The article expounds on how legislators and parties can use dictatorship to their advantage. In this closet, it is said that the inclusion of dictatorship without parties or legislature only lasts for three and half years. On the contrary to this, the incorporation of parties and legislatures makes dictatorship last for eight and half years. The article further provides analytical table of comparing the effects of dictatorship based on the percentage contributions. From the table, it can be shown that when no party or legislature is involved, the first few years of reign merit only 26%. This figure then reduces to 11% in the final regime year. In addition, incorporation of at least a party merits 31% initially but later, towards the end, this figure amounts to 28%. Finally, the incorporation of the legislature and at least one party in dictatorship results into 45% in the first year of reign. In the final year, this state results into 60% yielding.
The article provides the stand on dictators in terms of investments. It is true that all those parties who deploy dictatorship leadership style use a lot of resources to win support from the public. The basic characteristic of this leadership style involves formation of political parties long before power.
The author tells about various roles of parties in dictatorship. The core role of parties is to mobilize the society towards offering support for the leadership even if it remains authoritative. The parties will always use political parties, sports clubs, and youth groups to achieve enough numbers for support.