Signs of the End of a Regime

Is the uprising and revolt of the Iranian people a sign of the historical expiration date of the Islamic Republic system in Iran and the end of a regime?

With the rise to power of authoritarian rulers in various countries around the world, certainly many people ask themselves this question: what must happen for people under the rule of these despots to be liberated? For example, one can point to Mr. Ali Khamenei in the current Iranian regime or other dictators in the region.

Renowned American scholar Daniel Treisman, professor at UCLA, says: Based on data and analysis between the years 1800-2015, we have concluded that the fall of dictators is the result of mistakes they make in their efforts to maintain their power, and the more they struggled to hold onto power, the faster they headed toward collapse.

According to Mr. Treisman, mistakes such as naked repression, overmotivating people to fight foreign enemies, and incorrectly defeating elite rivals are among these mistakes. In the continuation of this article, we will review five of these mistakes that were repeated during the 55-day popular uprising against the Islamic Republic regime led by Mr. Ali Khamenei.

The first case is excessive pride of a despotic ruler. In such circumstances, the ruling dictator underestimates the power of his rivals and opponents, or fails in either reconciliation or suppression. For example, one can point to Nicolae Ceaușescu, secretary of the Communist Party and president of the socialist country of Romania until 1989. Mr. Ceaușescu was in the middle of a routine speech when he realized the overthrow and end of his rule.

One can also point to Muhammad Suharto, president of Indonesia. He believed the country could be controlled until the moment of resignation, but this happened differently for him; because when he least expected it, he was suddenly brought down by a widespread popular uprising.

Another case can be pointed to in the actions and movements of the Islamic regime these days and its dictator leader Ali Khamenei. He launches elections in Iran that he is forced to manipulate so much that, like Chilean dictator Pinochet in 1988, he completely loses his legitimacy and, to remain in power, is forced to launch a war against his own people whose end and outcome he was unaware of.

The third case can be called the “slippery slope.” A case that occurred during the rule and governance of Mikhail Gorbachev. He begins reforms to preserve the regime, but ultimately these reforms are what weakened him.

Today it seems likely that Mr. Ali Khamenei, the dictator leader of Iran, will resort to this type of action. Since the revolutionary uprising of the Iranian people has started a path of no return, it is probable that Mr. Ali Khamenei and the leaders of the Islamic regime of Iran, in order to control the situation, will implement a series of reforms that will be the same as giving confidence to the people and ultimately will lead to his overthrow.

The fourth case is reliance on a traitor. This is a mistake that dictators always make. For example, one can point to Francisco Franco, king of Spain. He chose “General Juan Carlos” as his successor. Regarding Mikhail Gorbachev, it should also be recalled that it was the elite of the regime’s political bureau that chose the wrong person to preserve their own power. Now it also appears that the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr. Ali Khamenei, given the actions he has recently committed, has most likely relied on several traitors or foreign infiltrators, which has caused him to behave so badly and unjustly in response to the Iranian people’s quest for justice.

The fifth and final case is reverse violence. Not suppressing opponents when necessary can be a sign of pride in a dictator, but an excessive reaction to it is a fatal mistake.

The example that Mr. Daniel Treisman recalls is Mr. H. M. Ershad, president of Bangladesh. An uprising that began after police shot at an opposition activist at a gathering forced him to resign.

But this resignation was also carried out by Ukrainian President “Viktor Yanukovych” in 2013 and became one of the cases of fatal self-destruction of most dictators; when riot police attacked several protesting students and brutally beat them. At that time, much larger protests occurred that led to the removal of dictator Yanukovych, a similar path that we see today in Iran.

I conclude this final analysis with this topic. All these mistakes are human judgments. Dictators, like ordinary people, sometimes act based on incomplete information or their own incorrect internal feelings. The only difference is that their pride has blinded them, and for precisely this reason, they are prone to gross errors. They fall for opinion polls that people do not answer honestly, or their entourage manipulates numbers and figures to please them. Something we witness every day on state radio and television and national media.

Mr. Daniel Treisman points out at the end of his report that 85 percent of the cases he studied about dictators observed democratization before unrest, which happened very late, and people have become tired of regimes in which their voices are not heard and have no desire to submit to the words of dictatorial rulers. Then just one person at the center of power takes a wrong step, and finally the people deliver their final blow.

An article by Reverend Abigail Yohannamarino