 Welcome to ThinkTech. I'm Jay Fidel. American issues take two. Understanding the move to global autocracy is happening. Understanding the causes and factors in play. And we have my co-host, Tim Epicella. We have our regular contributor, Stephanie Stull Dalton. And we have a special esteemed guest, Alexander Marawa. Alexander is a teacher in American University in Washington, D.C. So we want to examine the remarkable growth in autocrats and autocratic governments around the world, including just a touch of few China, Russia, Hungary, so many other places in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, especially Southeast Asia, and the rise of autocratic right wing movements in other countries that tend toward autocracy and the takeover by military hunters in so many countries. And what that means to the United States, which has its own issues, what it means to Europe in general, and the liberal world order. We are at a global inflection point. That is my suggestion to you all. Tim, let me ask you, what is going on? Is this the water, the air? Is it climate change? Is it a change in the human species? Why are we at this point in our global history? Well, yesterday we tackled the subject of social media and how that now is more efficient to spread ideas, falsehoods, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. And these are the, you know, this is a ripe fertile playground for would-be dictators. The fact that I could get access to everyone's mind with a simple, you know, simple phone in their hands. And, you know, it's an opportune time to describe the fact that most governments are polarized. It's an opportune time to discuss how inefficient governments and democracy is and try to fill that void with your solution, and your solution is autocracy, dictatorship. And again, it's to point out how government is horrible, they're corrupt, and they have little ability to improve the lives of the people around them in the country. And they're the solution. Donald Trump says, only I can fix it. Vladimir Putin says, only you can trust me. These are classic words from a would-be dictator, a fascist, that promote themselves as the solution to a nation of people who would have grievances. And that's what's going on today. You know, we have a correspondent in Varanasi, India, which is 350 kilometers from the northeastern border of India, and he's in school, and his school is right near the Ganges River. And he's a graduate student there in business. So I asked him a couple years ago, do you like Donald Trump? And he said, this is apropos to your comments. And he said, yeah, I do. I said, why? Why in the world would you like Donald Trump? You're educating yourself. What's your analysis? And he said, I quote, because he is strong. So I think we're at a time somehow where people, maybe it's because of social media. I'm interested in the other members of the panel on this feel that they need to have quote, strong and quote, leaders. And it's that whole search for strength, whether you've been recognized, realized it or not. Another question. Stephanie, what are your thoughts about this? Are we at a time where we need quote, strong leaders? What makes us, what puts us at that time? I think we're in a major default process here, which I first noticed when I was in Baghdad, and having wonderful Iraqi women friends and colleagues there. And when things would get really crazy, I would hear from these highly educated Iraqi women, oh, we need a strong man, a strong man, which is of course, as you know, what they had. So there's some sort of default here to, I guess, what was good for us for a millennium, as we came out of the cave and had to face, you know, the mammoths or the lions. So that has been the formula, right? That's been the algorithm for mankind. For centuries, got to have the strongest guy that could carry the biggest stick and do the most damage to those we perceive as dangerous. So it bewilders me. And the same thing when those women would say that. And now we just stopped it in my tracks and look at them. And then finally, they kind of, oh, yeah, well, okay. So these ego maniacal, mostly men who raise themselves up to fulfill these atomistic or ancient needs are still out there thinking that they, that's appropriate, that that's what they're supposed to do. And there are many people that go along with that and think that, you know, that's the way we're supposed to be organized. So back to the monarchy or back to, you know. Well, was it always, was it always us, Stephanie? You know, maybe we just didn't realize the need of the people everywhere to have a strong leader. We just didn't realize it. And we only realizing it now in contradiction to the enlightened, you know, enlightened view that there should be diversity. There should be democracy representation representation government and all that civil rights human rights. Maybe we didn't have those things before we didn't realize that we was suffering under this kind of a autocratic leadership. Now we see the difference. And it is stark. Am I am I hitting a point there that you can you can respond to? Thank you. I do think you are. You've made me realize that I think we need to get to strength to point out what is strong? What is strong? What was strong? We know what that was and it got us to where we are. Now we need strong. Yes. And what is it? We could redefine it as the way that we approach problem solving and conflict resolution and, you know, living together on the planet. What are the strengths that help us in that circumstance? It's not just the guy would stick, you know, so we just need to recognize the fabulous strengths that are out there that have gotten us, you know, beyond the need for the strong man. So anyway, you're Alexander, you're you can help us with the nuance on this. When you start talking about autocracy and hunters around the world, you have to realize that it's different in different places. And we look to you to fix all this, Alexander. Tell us what's really going on from an academic examination and to tell us, you know, what the nuances are. Well, my background is in law and I can assure you that lawyers are not the best people to fix everything. I would think that's really in the hands of others, better placed there. But let me say something that probably helps a little bit. I always love to look at it through the lens of history. Back at a time when the world was kind of comprehensible for people, generally speaking, because it was simpler, we wrote books. Now it's so complex that nobody knows anything anymore and we write tweets. And in tweets, everybody's an expert, right? So I think that is one of the biggest problems that we have simplified our communication to a level where the complexity is absolutely lost. And that leads to simple answers. I mean, that's where people say we need a simple answer because simple answer is a good thing. Another thing history teaches us democracy was not primarily something that did regular elections. Democracy as the Greeks envisioned it 500 years ago was that strong leaders would actually lead society, but strong meant quality, not the stick, it meant the intellect, the abilities to actually make the right decisions. And those leaders would also have the quality of finding that their role as leader is an honor. It's part of an honor structure and the Roman Republic was built on that. People were, of course, also earning money on the side and sometimes ripping off the places they went to, but it was an honor system where people would do it as part of their life cycle. And they would know that stepping down and passing it on to other people was a crucial element of being a strong leader. When we look at history, I think democracy had a meaning that goes way beyond just one person, one vote. It means that the leadership would be strong because of quality, it would be strong because of a knowing that they need to also step aside and let things pass into different hands. And those autocratic leaders we have today do not understand that. I mean, if you start with Xi and you move on to any other autocratic leader, they think they're there for eternity and they need to be there as the leader. They can be the honored past leader. It's an impossibility. Let me ask you about one thing. You said that it's not your wheelhouse because you're a lawyer and you're steeped in the law teaching law, what have you. But I have felt that the revelation that we experience in this country shows you a couple of things. One is that social media creates chaos. It is the very opposite of the rule of law. As you said, everyone is an expert and the chaos visits our institutions. It means that you can tear an institution down. You can create institutional chaos. On the other hand, lawyers, most of whom are trained to practice the law rather than to use the law to solidify our rule of law and our institutions don't take that burden. They do not take that burden, except in rare circumstances. When they get into office, there's so many in Congress, it doesn't help that they have legal training, or at least it doesn't help positively that they have legal training. They make a few perversions of the law, as we have seen in Congress. My question to you is, they seem to be diametrically opposed. The notion of social media and chaos in the public conversation versus the idea of the rule of law. Who is best prepared to advance and protect and preserve the rule of law, but lawyers? What I'm saying is, does this reflect a kind of failure of that profession? Does this suggest that going forward one solution to the chaos is to redefine the role of the lawyer in society here and elsewhere? I wouldn't blame the legal profession as such for failing in this respect. I think the law is far and large and reactive in response to societal changes. It's usually with delay and the delay can be from an hour to more usually 10, 20 years. We're just moving at our usual pace and society moves a lot faster. Maybe one word of caution, we shouldn't demonize social media either. If you look at Iran, that's probably the only way for the society to communicate against the government and to bring up new ideas, which ultimately hopefully will lead to a democratic change here and opening it up, of course. Then the question is, of course, if you want to regulate social media, good luck. I mean, herding cats becomes a favorite pastime of me if that would be an option. I cannot possibly imagine how to regulate social media, even with the best of intentions, because it is constantly changing. While we draft the law, people already draft tweets to say we will not have tweets anymore. We will have tweets and then the law will not apply to tweets because it's something different. So I think we will not be able to regulate that. Call me a heretic here, but maybe that's a good idea. I think society should regulate itself as much as possible. Alexander Michael John said free speech is a marketplace of ideas. Right now, we're just not good at weeding out the stupid ideas and limiting ourselves to the good ideas. That's because we're writing short things and not books anymore. My sarcastic comments. I apologize for using yes when it was published. Before I let you go on that, I want to offer the thought that you can use social media to organize the most negative possible events, events that undermine democracy, that move to autocracy and destroy civil rights and the rule of law. So my question is if it's like herding cats and then certainly you could make that argument very effectively. It's also very destructive and it is being used by people who are destructive, such as autocrats, as a tool to gain control. I suppose when I say social media, I'm also talking about the internet in general, because that's part of it. It's part of it for Vladimir Putin for sure. So my question is if we let it go free, if we let it have its way and not try to regulate it or do anything to put guardrails around it, aren't we risking our society? Absolutely. I mean, you could say the First Amendment is something very American. I'm not sure whether it's fully appropriate anymore at this point in time. In other societies, the approach to what you can say and what you can't say has been used differently. Look at Germany as an example. They make a differentiation between expression of facts and expression of opinion. Vinyon is free. You can have any opinion you want, but a court can step in and look into what are the facts you present are actually fact-based or manufactured out of thin air like we see sometimes. And then you can be sanctioned for that. I would think in the global context that might be a very useful tool of distinguishing between the marketplace of ideas versus the non-marketplace of facts to a certain extent. And some facts are just to be taken as a foundation for your ideas but not manipulated as well. Oh, wow. Tim, he's offering so many thoughts that you have expressed. I feel like you have to weigh in now. Well, thank you, Alexander, because, Jay's right, I've expressed a hundred times on this show and other shows that the media is guilty of this, is the blending of facts and opinion at the same news desk, whereas media used to be in the 60s and 70s a separate desk. And it was clearly delineated as a news desk versus the editorial desk or the opinion desk. So, yeah, thank you, Alexander. To hit your point about not blaming the attorneys for the rule of law or in the diminishment of the rule of law, I agree. In the 1980s and 90s, we had enough attorney jokes that bash the attorneys quite well and we don't need any more of that. However, I will bash the education system. No offense, Stephanie, and we talked about this. Civics 101, the importance of democracy, the comparative governments in the world and how that system of government in Iran or China or Russia is vastly different than the United States or in Europe. Comparative government studies. We don't see those classes anymore in high school. And how do you know if you're losing democracy if you don't know what democracy is in the first place? And I've seen many times, in fact, even with the athlete case, I can't remember a name, where people take for granted their bill of rights and their freedoms. And they transfer that assumption and that privilege to other countries that don't honor the bill of rights. And then when they get in trouble, they go, what's wrong? I'm an American. You can't do this to me. Well, guess what? They can. And in case of, what's her last name? Greiner? She found out the very hard way that what you get away from going from Alabama down to North Carolina is quite different than from her place in the United States to Moscow. And I see it all the time when I travel internationally, this real naivete from Americans about their rights and the expression of their rights. Well, Stephanie, I think in large part, we've been talking, Tim, just now, I've been talking about the experience here, the American experience. But I'm still interested in trying to figure out why we have so many autocracies around the world. More than I noticed before, maybe I wasn't noticing. But I listed them before when we opened the show. And I wonder if it's education or social media in the same way we see it here in the United States. That's happening in Hungary. That's happening in Russia. That's happening in China, North Korea, for example, in so many places where it's moving to the right, moving to the right, moving away from representative government. So I'm looking to you to try to find whether the phenomena that we see in the United States are happening everywhere. Or is it just coincidence? Well, there are some rising, there's some evidence that it is happening everywhere. In fact, is it not in Germany, Alex? I mean, we've had that recent coup effort, which said that they were inspired by or they were mimicking what they had seen in the United States. But this is the age-old accompaniment to the strong man leading. I mean, Mount Assam. I mean, Cambodia. All of these, the education system has to line up with all of that and does in these countries. And maybe that's one of the problems is the education system, well, why does remain fairly traditional, traditional approach? On the early 30s, when Hitler took over, the first thing he looked to was the education system. And he created Hitler youth and he gave them a whole new life in school. And he made them into a different generation from what they might have been. And that was a big strategy for him. And so if I'm an autocrat or I'm a would-be autocrat, first thing I do is attack the education system. Also I attack the lawyers, by the way. And I attack the media. But the education system can have lots of toys in it. And the flags and the marching and the uniforms and all the fun things. And then you also develop these ideals, which is something that needs to be done, the development of the ideal man for whatever country and who's the ideal woman. And what are these roles supposed to be? So all of this has to emerge from the effort of education. And it does emerge that way. So yeah, you're right. It would come right in and start taking over education. And that's what they're doing. And I think COVID didn't help us with that either, since it locked everybody up and took us back now two years ago, trying to build back these systems and certainly the pedagogy that we've been trying to change and use that is more about people fulfilling their potential and being expressive and doing things in a more democratic manner than the traditional approach of just being... Yeah, Alexander, I think we struck on something. It's education. But it's not the kind of education about kids in school. It's education of one would-be autocrat from reading about, thinking about and educating himself or herself about autocrats elsewhere, finding out what the playbook is and using the same, very same playbook. And that's one way you can spread autocracy around the world. Do you agree? Yeah, I think the example that Stephanie gave with the German incident with the so-called Reichsburg, I think is a good example. They certainly looked at January 6th as a playbook and learned from it. I mean, they did the good old German thing. I mean, they tried to figure out what was not organized well and trying to organize it better. And their attempt certainly was at exactly those target groups that we're talking about. The media, the administration, not to call it the lawyers, but high-level administration, the education system, and they organized themselves in a better way when you're talking about how autocrats learn from the mistakes of others. So there's no doubt about an international flow of information back and forth when it comes to autocrats and how they act. I think we also have to bear in mind, autocrats come to power in a certain way and then they want to stay in power in a certain way. We've seen in many European examples, now Erdogan being an example, and of course, Wurpoen in Hungary, they are now in a stage of their life and their autocracy in a way where it's about survival in the future. Most of those have one thing in common, namely no successor. They also have no transformation of ideology in case they themselves are not there anymore. So if you have a Xi autocratic ideology in China, imagine a heart attack it would quite literally decapitate the entire system that he built. The same would probably go for Erdogan and certain others. So I think it's a very complex topic in itself to look at, how to prevent autocracies and how to learn from the ends of autocracies. Very last comment, education is the one thing that lingers. If you look at the Germans after World War II, if you're being educated in March of 1945 as a Hitler follower, you're not going to be all of a sudden uneducated in May of 1945 and be a follower of a new democracy that somebody else imposes on you, which many of the Germans probably felt that at that time. So if you wrongly educate the children, that's going to be something that will keep pushing society in the wrong direction for time. You know, education is only good for the generation that you're educating. They don't necessarily pass it on. There's a movie called The Reader which examines, it's a very interesting movie, it examines the generational disaffection between the generation in Germany that was there in the war doing whatever they were doing, sometimes horrible things and the generation that followed. The generation that followed was asking, where did you do in the war? And the war generation didn't answer them because they were embarrassed and ashamed. And so there was a gap between the generations. This is very interesting. But the other point, you know, that Alexander mentioned is what happens if the autocrat dies, if she dies, if Kim Jong-un dies, it leaves a huge vacuum. And that vacuum is not really in the playbook because by definition, with an autocrat, there is no successor. And that's why some such great concern that a guy like Trump doesn't want to talk about a successor, he wants to stay in office forever, forever. And Putin, he wants to stay in office forever for life. But built into that model is a horrendous crash after he's no longer there. What are your thoughts about what happens in that crash? What happens when the autocracy crashes for the lack of a successor? Well, the first thing you see, you know, especially in South America, is a bloody struggle for power. And you have alliances, unholy alliances to support a would-be autocrat. And it goes from there. So everyone is strategizing, trying to gain control. And you have basically the society parked in neutral. It's not advancing. Basic needs are not being met because all the energy and synergy is focusing around retainment of power or the quest for power. So it's detrimental to the society wholeheartedly, not to have a line of succession or a system in which a new government will be brought in. Simple as that. You know, Alexander, one point that I would like to ask you about came up at a dinner party I was at last night. And it's the story of Tito in Yugoslavia, who kept the lid on things for as long as he was in office. And he was in office essentially for life, wasn't he? And he was an autocrat. Some people felt he was the best autocrat they could have had. But the benefit was that he kept the lid on a society that might be killing each other. And ultimately, they proved that they could be killing each other. So I guess the question I put to you is, when you have autocracy, when you have a successor problem like this, aren't you really skirting violence, skirting the possibility of a coup d'état, which is violent most of the time, skirting the possibility of a junta, which, you know, is likewise violent? If we, you know, with representative government and the peaceful transfer of power, the possibility of violence is limited. But in any other system that we can see around the world, these autocracies, for example, violence is always at the doorstep. Am I right? Yeah, actually, you know, when Tim was talking, and when you mentioned, of course, Marshall, you'll see Prostito came to my mind because he is the prototypical example of what happens when the lid blows up. And the war in former Yugoslavia was the classical example of the conflict between ethnicities and religions and tribal structures that were in place still was just covered up by force essentially. And once that lid fell away, it all exploded and exploded big time, right? The same for the Soviet Union. So it's not necessarily always a person. The system of Soviet Union kept the lid on many things as well. And the moment that fell away, people started saying, we want our liberty. And one person's liberty is the other one's slavery. So we of course had these kinds of problems too. And then give it 10, 15, 20 years, people look back and say, well, you know, Tito actually wasn't that bad, right? When he was there, he actually kept this, he kept law and order, right? He kept this under control. He made sure that we would not kill ourselves. The same goes for the Soviet Union. Communist parties came back into power about 15, 20 years after the wall broke down, Poland, Hungary and so on became independent. All these countries had resurgencies of communist parties. Just as they said in the back then, we paid one whatever currency it is for right now, we're paying 10,000, right? And it's not even there necessarily. Plus we have conflict, we have social security has fallen away, all the things we were just taking for granted are gone. Why don't we look back at these dictators or tyrants and save us so bad they were not? Well, is that what's happening now? Is that the common denominator? People are looking back in history and saying, you know, back in the old day when we had a tyrant running us, things were more orderly. Can we say that that is happening in a number of these autocratic states right now? Probably, and quite frankly also aren't we sometimes saying that? I mean, one of the foreign policy concerns of China is not only what if it does something that is a threat to our national interests in the South Pacific, or something like that. It's also what happens if she actually does die and the system collapses, would that create something even worse for our US interests? The same goes for Iran. You know, we all say that demonstrators have a cause. They're fighting for their rights, but there's also the concern, well, who comes after them, right? Who would replace the regime that's currently there? I think in foreign policy, it's a given that we try to deal with the beast that we know, then create a new one and then have to figure out how that works. So are we, in a way, tacitly, and not even 11 when it comes to that, are we kind of encouraging dictatorships to a certain extent? I wouldn't say it that way, but we should ask the questioners. You know, it reminds me of that old, you know, as we say, you know, democracy has its flaws, but it's the best thing we got. And it also, it occurs to me, and Stephanie, I like your thoughts about this, is that when you look at autocracy, when you look at military hunters, in tyrants, and what have you, and chaos for that matter, we've covered all of those possibilities. Representative government and democracy with the transfer of power, allowing people to speak on it every interval is the best system, because it presumptively values truth, it values openness, it values diversity, and so forth, and change, and peaceful change. So it would seem to me that what we may have learned today is the best antidote for all this autocracy and violations of human rights that we see in the world today is to preserve, really work hard at finding democracy as the way to preserve our public safety, at least. What do you think? Well, I think such a good point that we're talking here about the difference between having the rule of law and not. And that's what I believe was happening on January 6th, as they wanted to dispense with the rule of law. And one way to do that, but try to dispense, make it go away, but one way to do that is to evoke chaos. And I think that one of the reasons we came through it is because the chaos that was evoked was handled by the people that were in it to the point where they stayed in place and they had the strong, now the strong, thoughtful leaders like Pelosi and Schumer, who didn't go away. And also the vice president didn't go away. They didn't go and submit to the chaos and go running wild. They stayed in place, and the first thing you hear from Pelosi is when and Schumer, when are we getting back in their finch fist? We're not, we're not stopping. And the expectation was to have so much chaos, I believe, and the Trump coming up there then would need to call in the Marshall M.A.R.T.I.A.L. law so that then he would be in power again. So I just see that as a cycle at whatever level. And that cycle would have been made huge and would have evoked more chaos across the state and the whole country. So that's really interesting to me that some, the people who planned that, knew where to insert the difficulties so that they would cause the most. It's a playbook thing. It's a playbook thing. The end of the day, you know, you have chaos and somebody surfaces as the powerful leader. Let me go to you where we're about out of time, Tim, but I wanted to ask you a question and also ask you to summarize your thoughts. And so if I made you ruler of the world, how about Secretary General of the United Nations? And we reorganize the Security Council so the United Nations is free to do righteous things. What would you do to a world which seems to be falling prey to autocracy and military hunters and war crimes and the like? What would you do? And violations of sovereignty? Let's not forget that. You always save the easy questions for me, Jay. Thank you. Yes, I do. You know, the first thing I'd say is, look, we're all in this big planet together. We're all in the same kettle of stew together. And we only have one Earth and one environment. And we better start working together or as Ben Franklin said, we better hang together before we hang separately. And the bottom line is I would start saying, look, there's certain people and entities that want to persuade you, influence you by these techniques, a propaganda by the techniques of words that lead to populism or techniques and words that lead to nationalism, recognize these words, recognize these strategies so that we could fight and guard against it and try to work together as a cooperative democratic society or republic and solve the world's problems cooperatively, not through military strength and the comings and goings of an egomaniac sociopath dictator. So suppose they thumb their nose at you, Tim, what then? Well, I wouldn't be the first one to be shown the door. Shown the door. A new kind of sanction. Alexander, your thoughts here summarize your view of this and what you would leave with our listeners. I very much agree with him. I think we have to fall back to the rational logical question. What are we actually doing here? And does it make any sense? Isn't there more important stuff to do? And I think the preservation of the environment and making sure that we have a planet left would probably be number one, because every other question depends on it. So if we answer all the other questions, write beautiful books about it, but then we have no atmosphere to live in, to breathe them, and to exist, or we destroy all life except us, and we exist in a virtual world only, then the end is there anyway. So it doesn't matter. So definitely that, I believe, still strongly in the rule of law, I believe in the purpose and value of the law, but it must never become a tool for the dictators. Bear in mind, dictators use the law very creatively. Hitler certainly would be a good example for that. When that happens, I think everything that the law stands for crumbles and disappears, and we as lawyers do the same. Would you support global government and enhance the United Nations? I think an enhanced international organization in the broader sense doesn't have to be the United Nations is always a good idea, because there's so much to go in it that we certainly need more structure and infrastructure in place. I would not think that world government would be a better solution than non-world government, quite frankly. If you ask me honestly, I think the global community is better placed to resolve major issues. The local community is more better placed to resolve major issues. The ones that actually we've always turned to, namely states, are actually the least likely to resolve those issues, because there you have nationalism, conflict, territorial disputes, historical disputes that go back hundreds of years make no sense. So the higher level and the lower level, I think are more rational than the government level would be, look to most of the time, namely the federal government in wherever you look. Bethany, I have one interesting question for you, for your summary, so to speak. Is humankind perfectible or not? Or are we in some sort of biblical trajectory where it all ends in an apocalypse? Well, the biblical trajectory is probably something that is here, but not the main road. In other words, mankind, all of us in these nations, you have to understand that it's us. What is that comic strip? We looked out the enemy was us, but who's responsible for everything is all of us. So that there is no, God's not coming down, even though he's on our side and making it right. And the angels aren't coming and the whoever else is. So it's all on us. And that when we come to understand that, instead of trying to consolidate power and become that crazy dictator or egomaniacal single source thing, that the power has to be distributed and shared. And all the people have to take their responsibility and just distribute it throughout. How to do this, I don't know, but I think we can see that there are paths to go forward here to think about power and how to do the work we need to do to live here peaceably and happily. There are ways that we know to do it. It's a matter of how we're going to move forward in that. I'm sure that if we shut ourselves in a room and brought in the pizza for meals, we could figure this out in some period of time. Thank you so much for this very interesting conversation. And we haven't solved all the problems in the world. We've identified a few. Aloha. Donate to us at thinktecawaii.com. Mahalo.