Foreign Policy

Lost Leaders and Bold Alternatives

14 November 2011

Leadership, like all historical phenomena, moves in cycles. Periods of boldness (think of the 1940s, the 1980s, and the early 2000s) are followed by years of very limited horizons (think of the 1950s, the 1970s, and the 1990s.) We are living today in a time of terrible self-constraint. Our leaders face difficult economic, political and military challenges, but they are no worse than what their predecessors confronted. Remember the Great Depression, the Second World War, even the oil shocks and Vietnam War of the early 1970s? The problem today is that our leaders remain stuck in the low cycle of self-limitation. They just cannot manage to think big and turn our crises into opportunities.

What does this mean? If the history of the last century proves anything, it is that careful management of crises and political “muddling through” can only get you so far. The great leaders who made serious contributions to human betterment took calculated, bold risks in exactly the kinds of circumstances we face today. Franklin Roosevelt did not try to “manage” the Great Depression as Herbert Hoover had done; he took risks to transform the American (and world) economy. Winston Churchill did not try to “manage” British decline in the face of German Fascism; he rallied his people to rebuild their military and their empire. Ronald Reagan did not try to “manage” the Cold War; to the consternation of his advisors, he imagined and pursued a new form for superpower relations. Great challenges require grand visions, with a tolerance for some risk-taking.

Our global problems have become worse in the last year because our leaders at all levels of all societies lack vision, imagination, and the courage for calculated risk-taking. Republicans and Democrats in the United States cannot transcend their tired, counterproductive rhetoric about tax-cutting and entitlement protection. European Union leaders cannot escape the band-aid efforts to patch together a failing currency that must be re-made with more effective institutions. United Nations diplomats, especially those from Russia and China, continue to defend Iranian sovereignty as they watch that country pursue what everyone recognizes as a nuclear weapons program that will produce a regional war if it is not stopped soon.

We do not need to focus on politics alone. Take our “great” universities. Has anyone met a bold educational leader recently. The sexual abuse scandal at Penn State University, following recent scandals at the University of Miami and Ohio State, shows that the presidents of the world’s wealthiest and most distinguished institutions of higher education are asleep at the wheel. Universities are hemorrhaging money from academics, but they continue to pour resources into glitzy athletic programs that overpay coaches, under-educate students, and frequently break the law. Boosters at the University of Miami hired prostitutes for players. A coach at Penn State abused young boys. The story continues but university leaders do nothing systematic. They meekly apologize and move on with more of the same.

It is not too late for bold leaders to emerge. It is not too late for new directions. It is not too late to proclaim that the evident failures in our inherited institutions and policies mean that we must try something serious and something new. That is the discussion Americans should have in the 2012 presidential election. That is the discussion Europeans should have as they contend with new national governments and a failing currency. That is the discussion the international community should have about nuclear non-proliferation, inequality, and education for a new century.

I am a historian so I remain confident that the wheel of time will turn again, producing bold (probably young) new leaders. That is why I like the “Occupy” movement, which is now spreading from urban downtowns to college campuses. The students in sleeping bags and tents do not have the answers, but they are asking the right questions. Why should we accept limited horizons? Why should we support failed institutions and unimaginative leaders? Can’t we do better?

I hope our most ambitious and talented citizens our listening. Now is their time. Now is their opportunity. A time of bold change is upon us.

This blog post originally appeared at http://globalbrief.ca

Posted in Blog, Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, Grand Strategy, history, Teaching |

Tags: athletics, bold, Churchill, Democrat, EU, European Union, Leadership, non-proliferation, nuclear, Reagan, Republican, Roosevelt, strategy, vision |

2 Comments »

Gadhafi”s Death and Middle East Rebirth

21 October 2011

The death of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi is the death of a Middle East generation that dominated the decades after the Second World War. It is a death that might prove more significant than the demise of communism, the rise of China, or the spread of terrorism. Gadhafi’s murder marks a separation from a recent past that, after years of familiarity, now seems unbelievably strange. We know we are in a decisively new political space for this reason: those who just months ago seemed destined to rule have quickly disintegrated into the dustbin of history.

Gadhafi’s Generation

Gadhafi’s four decades of rule in Libya were part of a common phenomenon across the Middle East. The articulate and impassioned child of poor citizens, Gadhafi drew popular support from a potent combination of nationalist chest-beating, religious revival, and promises of managed economic development. For societies emerging from colonialism and mired in poverty, charismatic prophets like Gadhafi were intoxicating. They turned the realities of postwar despair in the Middle East into a promise of strong independent states that embraced the modernity of new technologies as they remained true to ancient faiths. Gadhafi was the postcolonial answer to foreign dependency and neo-imperialism in Libya.

Gamal Abdel Nasser anticipated this role in nearby Egypt. Saddam Hussein and Hafez al-Assad adapted the model to Iraq and Syria. The Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s and the zealotry of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini were the high tide of what observers at the time viewed as an era of Middle East militant authoritarianism. Some saw it as a new fascism with Islamic characteristics.

Gadhafi and his fellow dictators rarely cooperated and they frequently went to war with one another. They each had delusions of regional dominance. They relied on the rhetoric, symbolism, and experience of perpetual war to boost their leadership and cower their critics. Gadhafi called himself a “colonel” because he claimed to fight side-by-side with his people in battle, and he threatened to destroy anyone who chose another side.

Prophets Become Criminals

Gadhafi played this game very well. His four decades in power (well beyond the average for rulers in any period or place) prove this point. He kept numerous internal, regional, and global enemies at bay. He enriched himself, his family, and his closest supporters. He became an international celebrity who fascinated observers with his eccentric behavior and rallied suffering people with his defiance of more powerful countries, especially the United States. Most people abhorred Gadhafi, but they respected his charismatic power. That was what made him so threatening, more than just a crazy dictator from a far away place.

The Libyan dictator outlasted Nasser, Assad, Khomeini, and Hussein. He was the last of a long postwar generation. His overthrow shows that the mix of nationalism, religion, and centralized development promised by that group of leaders is no longer persuasive to people in the Middle East. The prophets of the postwar era are the criminals of the twenty-first century. That is what the “Arab Spring” is all about.

What’s Next?

What will come next? There is no clear path to democracy in Libya and other Middle East societies. There are no obvious successor figures who can mobilize their societies around a coherent vision. There is no clear program for political renewal in the region.

The societies in the Middle East are, therefore, starting over. They are being reborn. Their futures are more uncertain and open than most people realize. The possibilities for both achievement and disaster are greater than since Nasser, Gadhafi, and others first came to power.

Openness and Basic Stability

What should the international community do? Amidst such uncertainty, and the tightening constraints on available resources, there are no simple answers. Massive infusions of aid and other forms of direct intervention are impractical and probably counter-productive in present circumstances.

The best route forward is one that encourages increased openness and some basic stability in Libya and other countries. The international community should promote and even modestly fund more outlets for debate in each Middle East country about the future of the region. Maximum political participation should be a goal. The greatest diversity of opinion should be our aim. New political programs will only emerge from a process like this.

To encourage basic stability, international efforts should focus on limiting violence in the region and building local institutions for adjudication of disputes. Citizens should feel safe as they debate their future. They should believe that they are involved with a fair political process. The United States and its allies should support the rule of law, not the rule of a particular party.

Modest Nation-Building

This modest program for the Middle East after Gadhafi can have real effects. The history of nation-building over the last two centuries confirms the utility of these measures. It also reminds us that in times of political transformation, focused attention and long-term investment are the best policy. Such wisdom can indeed turn Gadhafi’s death into a true moment of rebirth for the peoples of the Middle East.