In my posting on 13 December 2013 [http://latamperspectives.blogspot.com/2013/12/latin-american-dictators.html],
I commented on the execution of North Korean elder statesman and dictatorial
uncle Jang Song Thaek. I related the dictatorship of Kim Jong Un to many
similar egocentric and/or totalitarian regimes in history, making special
mention of the numerous dictators who have subjugated regions of Latin America
over the last couple of centuries, with special emphasis on the “desaparecidos” as an example of the
utmost in dictatorial cowardice. Parallels also can be drawn between Kim Jong
Un and leaders such as Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro,
Idi Amin, “Papa Doc” Duvalier, and others. A commonality
within this group is the role of a few individuals who helped enable the rise
to power of the eventual dictator, and the much larger groups that actively or
passively collaborated with oppressive regimes.
In the current case of North Korea, Jang Song Thaek presumably shored
up his nephew’s bid for power under the assumption that he could control the
frivolous, pampered dilettante and exercise true power behind the throne. In
the tradition of Cardinal Wolsley’s fate, the puppet protégé eventually turned
on his mentor and eliminated him. More often, however, dictators seize control
of a country with the support of special interest groups who embrace the leader
as a means to realize their own desires for control. Frequently this elite sees the strong-arm
practices of the totalitarian regime as a means to their own specific ends,
usually a way of preserving their source of power. In some cases, once the
supposed figurehead consolidates his authority, he moves to neutralize anyone
who may pose a challenge to his administration.
In pre-Nazi Germany, Hitler rose to prominence through the support of the
Brown Shirts (Sturmabteilung or “SA”). Once he
procured the Chancellorship in 1933, Hitler began questioning the role of the
SA and finally disempowered them through the “Blood Purge” of 1934.
Stalin eliminated Trotsky and other old-school Bolsheviks in the “Great Purge.”
Mao decimated the senior ranks of his Communist Party with the “Cultural
Revolution.” By 1965, a Soviet-supported Castro freed himself of the
ever-revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara.
In post-colonial Latin America, some totalitarian or corporativist
governments have been backed by oligarchies comprised of large land owners
and/or industrialists, while others emerged as populist. Among the 19th-Century
“caudillos,” Juan Manuel de Rosas of
Argentina, Dr. José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia of
Paraguay, and the numerous Brazilian “coronéis”
derived their power from an almost feudal socio-political structure based on
immense tracts of land and the cooperation among those who owned them. In the
20th Century, Juan Domingo Perón and Getúlio Vargas defined modern
populist dictatorships in Argentina and Brazil, respectively. These two leaders
managed to appeal to the masses while still serving the interests of a select
group of business, industry, and land owners. The general populous who
supported them did not directly endorse secret police, torture, and the other
trappings of a (quasi)dictatorial regime. Rather, they the sought to ensure an
overall livelihood and economic standard that they felt would be well served by
these particular leaders. In this they are quite distinct from the cynical and
blatantly self-serving supporters who lined their own pockets at the expense of
this very citizenry.
In situations resulting from a revolutionary rise to power, several
kinds of collaborators stand out, as defined by the nature of their
participation in or support of the new regime. Some are actual ideologues or
members of the revolutionary body that activity participated in over-throwing
the previous government and who benefit directly from the new order. Others are
petty technocrats and bureaucrats without ideology or moral compass who readily
embrace the “brave new world” as an automatic response to the presence of
power. They seek power for power’s sake, and are prepared to “drink the
Cool-Aid” if necessary in order to feed their addiction. Yet another group sins
through omission by avoiding taking any position and thus winds up empowering
the atrocities that extreme regimes commit. The Southern Cone countries of the
1960s and 1970s housed actual majorities that turned a blind eye to
disappearances and torture, much like the German people under the Nazis who
chose not to think about what fate befell their Jewish neighbors, albeit to a
lesser degree in terms of the number of victims.
There is also a special group of unwitting collaborators: the “inocentes úteis” in Portuguese, or most often
“useful idiots” in English. These are individuals who can be manipulated by the
regime but are too naïve to realize what role they have been acquired. Frequently
these people can believe that they are endorsing a noble goal, incapable of
critically analyzing the political and ideological rhetoric that the regime
spoon-feeds them. They often are self-righteous about the purpose of their
actions, be it the implementation of a truly egalitarian socialist state, the
consolidation of economic prosperity and industrial competitiveness for the
nation, or the grand panacea of change and progress as in the 19th
Century’s positivist movements or the case of nationalist modernization under
Vargas.
What is common to all of these groups is their capacity to ignore
atrocities either by commission or omission. If confronted by the facts of
abuses effectuated by the state or the specific leader, they chose not to
believe them. Ultimately, no dictatorial regime could endure to make a mark in
history without the tacit or explicit support of the majority.
