Quote:
Originally posted by Robb@EPE
Very interesting point Publius. I don't think it's true, but it's interesting none-the-less.
|
It's indeed very interesting. One need only look at the parallels with former Yugoslavia - one dictator, Tito, manages to hold many ethnic groups together. As soon as he dies, the country falls apart into warring factions. Or look at Russia: without the power of the Soviet Union/communist rule, the country fell apart, albeit peacefully.
There are countless other examples where "strong" leaders held together a large, diverse, country, and where the removal of that leader led to war. What about the rise and fall of the Roman empire? Or the chaos that Charlemagne's death brought to his empire?
I'd say that "strong" leaders instill fear into their subjects, who dare not speak their mind, or act against the state (for obvious health reasons). As soon as that controlling power is removed, people can give in to their hatred and animosity (the result of years of resentment).
Of course, it doesn't have to go this way, but sometimes it does.