Friday, January 27, 2012

Syria's in-eficiency secret


Syria’s in-efficient secret:
            In his in depth analysis of the British Parliament between 1850 to 1870, political analyst Gary Cox discovered what he called the “efficiency secret” in governments.  Cox defines this secret as the “nearly complete fusion of the executive and legislative powers.” Cox discovers that in the latter end of the 1800s, the British Parliament drastically increased power to the Cabinet.  Other government institutions gradually diminished their power and importance.  Even backbenchers saw their influence greatly weaken. 
            As a result, Britain’s Cabinet achieved more policy implementation than ever before.  Party discipline rose, MP policies driven by pork incentives decreased, and a party oriented electorate formed.  In essence, regional representation was replaced by a centralized power system.  This, therefore, allowed higher “efficiency” within the Cabinet.  Policies set forth by the majority party could be passed quicker than ever before.
            In theory, a dictatorship should naturally have a built in “efficiency secret”; for better or for worse.  What the dictator wants immediately is implemented.  What is strange, therefore, is Syria’s lack of ability to achieve the efficiency secret’s competence. Perhaps this is the reason why civil war broke out.
            In his twelve year reign as President (Syria is democratic in name only), Bashar al-Assad continually stumbled with attempts at policy implementation.  A recent article from the International Crisis Group stated,
“Many decisions witness a contest between various lines of thought that
coexist within the regime, each reflecting a slightly different worldview,
diverging private interests or personal rivalries. Some decisions ultimately
reflect a balance between diverse institutional power centres; others, a more
decisive victory by a particular one ... Further confusion arises from the fact
that officials occasionally take initiatives or make pronouncements that are
inconsistent with the authorised line – in an attempt to influence it; as a
means of drawing attention to themselves; in order to express frustration;
or, quite simply, out of ignorance.”
            International relations with western states suffer as a result of this.  President Assad will promises one thing, but will not (or cannot) deliver on his promises the next day.  The real question is whether this “inefficient secret” is either a calculated ploy to remain in power, or a true lack of control over the Syrian government.  Perhaps the inefficiency of Assad‘s quest for democracy is a well-calculated maneuver to stay in power.   Yet at the same time, he could not successfully destroy a rising rebellion.  President Assad has quite efficiently killed thousands of Syrian protestors and political enemies over the years, yet stumbles to reform important democratic policies. 
            In effect, President Assad is either a cunning genius or blundering fool.  The outcome of the civil war will decide how Syrian history books paint this picture.
Whitaker, Brian. “When is a dictator not a dictator?” guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/18/dicator-syria-bah

Cox, The Efficient Secret. 1987. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

6 comments:

  1. Good thoughts on Bashar al-Assad. It will be interesting to see what happens in Syria's future.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What would you identify as the factors preventing Bashar al-Assad's complete control of the government? Is it just because the interests of the military, individual party members or corporations are so entrenched in the bureaucracy, or are there additional factors?

    I'd also like more clarification on why inefficiency in the government keeps Assad in power. It seems that not being able to control policies would diminish his security. Having complete control over the bureaucracy could be more effective than jumbled policies in stifling democratic reforms.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really wonder what is going to happen. It will I wonder now with the Arab Moderators gone what is going to happen now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like how you humanize dictators in general but tie it in with Bashar al-Assad and Syria. Well written and it will be interesting to see how the international relations do change.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You do a good job of raising the question of whether Al-Assad's perceived inability to implement action is lack of control of power or his unwillingness to change policies. However, I do not think that Bashar has any intention of letting Syria become truly democratic and relinquishing control of the government.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think this is a well-written and well thought out piece. I would like to know your opinion of whether Assad is a genius or a fool given his actions (or inactions) as president. I also wonder how the inefficiency could be a ploy by Assad to remain in power. The only thing that I could think of in this strategy is Assad giving others the illusion of power. If Assad's policies and commands were always implemented then it would be clear that he was the center of power in Syria.

    ReplyDelete