Dictators often prioritise development projects that serve their own interests, perpetuate their power, and maintain control over their citizens.
The development is usually executed purportedly for the public benefit but scrutiny often reveals that it only serve the purposes of dictators.
This article provides an in-depth analysis of how dictators prioritise development, exploring the reasons behind their decisions and the consequences for their citizens.
The article aims to invoke critical mindset, readers at the end of reading will be able to analyse who benefits most from development intiated by perceived dictators.
The Motivations Behind Dictators’ Development Priorities
- Visibility and their Legacy: Dictators use development projects to create visible symbols of their power and legacy.
- Economic Control: Development projects allow dictators to maintain control over the economy and accumulate wealth.
- Political Loyalty: Dictators reward loyal supporters with development projects, maintaining political alliances.
- Nationalism and Prestige: Development projects foster national pride and prestige, distracting from human rights abuses.
- Short-term Gains: Dictators prioritise short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability and social welfare.
- Lack of Accountability: Dictators face little accountability, allowing them to prioritise development over social services.
- Patronage and Corruption: Development projects enrich dictators and their allies through corrupt practices.
- Security and Surveillance: Development projects include elements of security and surveillance, solidifying dictators’ control.
- International Recognition: Development projects attract international recognition and investment, legitimising dictators’ rule.
- Distraction from Human Rights Abuses: Prioritising development distracts from human rights abuses and social issues.
Case Studies – Dictators’ Development Priorities
Dictatorial regimes often prioritise development projects that serve their own interests, perpetuate their power and maintain control over their citizens.
This phenomenon is evident in various countries, where dictators have implemented development projects that benefit themselves and their allies, while neglecting the needs and preferences of the masses.
In North Korea, for instance, Kim Jong-un’s regime has prioritised military development and showcase projects, such as the construction of grand monuments and stadiums.
However, the masses would have preferred development projects that address their basic needs, such as humanitarian aid, food security, and basic infrastructure.
This led to widespread poverty, famine, and human rights abuses.
Similarly, in Venezuela, Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro‘s socialist development projects have benefited their loyal supporters, while the masses have suffered from economic instability, lack of access to basic goods, and poor healthcare.
The regime’s priorities have exacerbated the country’s economic crisis, leading to widespread poverty and migration.
Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s large-scale infrastructure projects have showcased his regime’s power and prestige, but have neglected the masses’ needs for education, healthcare, and social welfare programs.
The regime’s priorities have led to widespread discontent and human rights abuses.
In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s mega-projects have prioritised economic growth and prestige over environmental protection, social justice, and human rights.
This have led to widespread criticism and opposition from civil society groups.
China, Xi Jinping’s massive development projects, such as the Belt and Road Initiative, have prioritised regional development and economic growth over poverty reduction, environmental protection, and human rights.
This have led to widespread criticism and concern from neighboring countries and international organisations.
Russia, Vladimir Putin’s showcasing projects, such as the Sochi Winter Olympics, have prioritised national prestige and international recognition over economic diversification, social welfare, and human rights.
The preferences have led to widespread criticism and opposition from civil society groups.
Saudi Arabia‘s modernisation projects under, Mohammed bin Salman, have prioritised economic growth and prestige over human rights, women’s empowerment, and social reform.
The regime’s priorities have led to widespread criticism and concern from international organizations and human rights groups.
Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov’s grandiose projects have prioritised national prestige and international recognition over agricultural development, education, and healthcare.
These preferences have led to widespread poverty, human rights abuses, and environmental degradation.
Dictatorial regimes’ development priorities often serve their own interests, perpetuate their power, and maintain control over their citizens, while neglecting the needs and preferences of the masses.
This phenomenon has led to widespread poverty, human rights abuses, and environmental degradation.
It is essential to promote a more inclusive and equitable approach to development, prioritising the needs and preferences of the masses over the interests of dictatorial regimes.
The Consequences
- Neglect of Social Services: Dictators prioritise development over essential public services like healthcare and education.
- Human Rights Abuses: Development projects often involve human rights abuses, such as forced labor and displacement.
- Corruption and Cronyism: Development projects enrich dictators and their allies through corrupt practices.
- Environmental Degradation: Development projects often result in environmental degradation and resource depletion.
Dictators’ development priorities serve their own interests, perpetuate their power, and maintain control over their citizens, while neglecting essential public services and human rights.
This article has provided a comprehensive analysis of the reasons behind dictators’ development priorities and their consequences, highlighting the need for a more inclusive and equitable approach to development.
Development should not take the top-bottom approach only, it should be all encompassing, taking into cognisence the development required at grassroot levels.