Quite a few people have drawn parallels between the relationship of a dictator to the governed and that of an abusive husband (or wife) to their quarry. Those unfamilar with the dynamics of such relationships, in particular the concept of "trauma bonding," are at a loss to understand why wives, in spite of the atmosphre of severe oppression, return time and again or,in other cases, endure what to others would be intolerable. I think the answer lies in the what those working win the field of abuse call "trauma bonding" whereby, in between episodes of severe repression, an abuser will do or say that which gives hope to the abused. Often, just at the point where the abused seems ready to give up,rise up or leave. The abused, whose psychology has been subtly altered by years of their abuser's mood swings, can overly identify with these good episodes and wonder as to whether they had perhaps been mistaken or somewhat harsh in their judgement of him. The good periods are, in truth,a manipulative part of the abuse and not distinct from it and are designed to ensure the continued compliance of the subject.
Just as with domestic dictators, dictators who preside over a larger land masses, and for whom the occasional act of benevolence has failed to stem uprisings, use much the same psychologial weaponry. Talk of leaving, or questing after freedom or protests are met by both types of dictator (often with feigned benevolance) as evidence of a conspiaracy against him by outside elements. In the case of an Arab leader, the finger of blame may be pointed towards the Americans or, more usually, the Israeli's, whilst the domestic dictator will lay the blame at the abused's own family, divorcees (intent on making the abused wife as miserable as them) or radical feminist separatists. At no point does the dictator ever acknowledge that the abused's grievances are legitimate.
If the abused manges to extricate themselves from the abuser's vice-like psychological grip then the dicatator may grudgingly accept to implement changes.But, scratch below the surface,and you'll find that the willingness to change derives not from a sense that they have acted inappropriately or oppressively but out of an indulgence for the opressed (or at least that is how it will be presented). Therefore, any changes will be tokenistic and will not herald real change whether on the national or in the domestic sphere.Change can only occur when the oppressed's feeling are consider as important as those of the dicator himself and he permits of himself the possibilty that his policies might be wrong, misguided or cruel. Dictataors, perhaps out of deepset low-self esteem, never doubt themselves, and rarely take advice from others, (others existing only to shore up the wholly positive god-like image of themselves as creatures without need). Note how Hosni Mubarak, in his interview with ABC News, emphasised his being tired of politics and that his unwillingness to resign derived from his duty to Egypt and not from any psychological neediness for power and control. Thus, in one line, he neatly dismissed the views of a good part of the Egyptian populace (who would very much like him to go), asserted the supremacy of his views and presented what is, in truth, extreme selfishness as a selfless act of sarifice.
Some abused individuls, like the Tunisian populace, are able to make that break cleanly and this is facilitated in part by the stength of the will of the dictator to hold onto his territory. Whilst ,for others, leaving is a rather more complicated affair.
Let us pray that the Muslim Brotherhood and all other concerned parties will not fall for the rhetoric and pseudo-indulgence of Mubarak.
No comments:
Post a Comment