The Legacy of Successive Dictators: The Fall of Bashir

Mengistu Musie (Dr) [email protected]

Abu Mohammed was the name given to a militant who fought for years against the regime in Syria. After spending significant time in battle, he returned to Damascus, committed to what he believed was a fight for freedom from dictatorship. When his commanders captured the Syrian capital, Abu Mohammed Al-Golani announced his comrades would now call him by his family name, Ahmad al-Sharaa.

Ahmad al-Sharaa, a former member of Al-Qaeda, claimed to have renounced the extremist organization after years of membership. He stated that his focus had shifted to fighting for the Syrian people’s and their country’s freedom. However, in a public speech, he still supports the concept of Islamic internationalism, a philosophy that mirrored the exclusivist ethnic and religious agendas of groups like the TPLF in Ethiopia, fighting primarily for Tigrayans, or the OLF, focused solely on Oromos. This approach failed to consider the diversity of Syria, where Christians alone make up 10% of the population—a significant minority in the nation’s social fabric.

On the other hand, the dictator Ahmad al-Sharaa opposed Bashar al-Assad, who assumed power from his father in year 2000, ruled Syria with an iron fist and little regard for the welfare of his people. Lacking empathy or any actual connection to his fellow citizens, Bashar treated Syria and its population as his personal property. Severe repression marked his rule, and when the people rose in 2011 to demand fundamental freedoms, his response was brutal and inhumane.

Bashar al-Assad witnessed the downfall of regional autocrats like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Each faced humiliating and violent ends after years of dictatorship. Yet, despite these glaring lessons from recent history, Bashar chose the same path of violence and repression. When Syrians began their uprising, he ordered airstrike of civilian areas, indiscriminately killing his people. Reports of his regime’s use of poison gas on Kurdish populations and other communities only reinforced his image as a tyrant willing to commit atrocities to hold onto power.

Dictators worldwide follow similar patterns, repeating the same mistakes. Bashar al-Assad could have avoided such a fate. He might have stepped down when the revolution began, preserving the lives of his people, the country’s historical artifacts, and his legacy. He might have earned respect at home and abroad by relinquishing power gracefully. History may have remembered him more favorably. Instead, like many dictators, he clung to power, demonstrating a lack of foresight and an unwillingness to learn from the mistakes of those who fell before him.

The legacies of Mubarak, Saddam Hussein, and Gaddafi should have been enough to deter him. Mubarak ruled Egypt for 30 years, only to die in disgrace after his incarceration. Saddam Hussein, once a feared leader, met his end, humiliated, and executed. Gaddafi, once a self-proclaimed “strongman,” was reduced to pleading for his life in his final moments. Yet Bashar al-Assad, despite witnessing all of this, chose the same path of destruction.

This is not an exceptionally tragic pattern in the dictatorship of Syria. Ethiopia had had its share of repressive regimes within the last half a century. The 1974 revolution that fought for fundamental human and democratic rights ushered in the repressive Derg regime. From the Derg through to the TPLF down to Abiy Ahmed’s administration, each successive regime made promises of justice, equality, and democracy, but none has delivered. One succeeded another in defeat and embarrassment after the people rejected those actions. Yet, despite these staring-at-its-face lessons in contemporary Ethiopian history, the current government of Abiy Ahmed makes catastrophic decisions that reinforce all the trappings of renewed violence and repression. Today, Abiy’s government is still committing atrocities, killing civilians, upending society, and destroying what little was left of Ethiopia’s fragile institutions. A leadership that came to power promising unity and reform has degenerated into autocracy. Instead of embracing inclusive governance, he alienated key parts of the population, most notably the Amhara people, whose struggle for freedom and survival has become increasingly desperate. Abiy’s resorting to violence as a means of control only underlines his inability to govern through consensus or justice.

Going back to the Syrian revolution of 2010-2011, following the Arab Spring, Bashar al-Assad faced a similar choice. Inspired by uprisings across the region, the Syrian people demanded basic democratic reforms, including forming a transitional government. But instead of responding with empathy or compromise, Assad opted to overpower the revolution with the highest possible level of force. It was the utter repudiation of people’s demands and the mass killing of peace demonstrators that marked the descent of Syria into a horrific civil war. He could have joined a new generation of leaders ready to embrace change and stand by people. Instead, his determination to clutch on to power at all costs transformed him into a pariah cast away from the same capital that he had once occupied, alienated from the very people who could continue to have allowed him, if willed, under tranquil circumstances to remain unopposed in his seat as a head of state under whom they live in peace: the Syrian people rose through demands for their due freedom while allowing Assad and his family a quiet life. His refusal to yield to their demands speaks to that common trait among dictators: inability to recognize that a rule based on oppression and fear is doomed to fail. Every dictator, past and present, knows full well that their acts are unjust. Yet, they would still nurture the belief that they can remain in power through opposition and silencing dissent. This has closed their eyes to the inevitable judgment awaiting them after years of tyranny.

That is how Abiy Ahmed’s case became with his Ethiopia. Recently, Abiy belittled the Amhara resistance and Fano, saying it is impossible to defeat his army, even if they fight against it for 1,000 years. The ridiculous arguments are a testament to the bottom, where he is oblivious to real-world facts. Nobody lives for 1,000 years, and the energy to continue the conflict decreases as time goes on. The only problem is that Abiy’s rhetoric reveals his lurking fear of the resilience of the Amhara people and how that stands against the determination to crush their aspirations for freedom. Such a statement by Abiy that the Amhara resistance is doomed to fail looks childish and symbolic of how detached from the ground a dictator will get. The thing that this is an attempt at, in his desperate vain, is to appear strong when he feels scared and insecure. Far from putting any confidence in his leadership, his words brought out into the open the increasing paranoia over the people of the Amhara’s struggle for justice and self-determination. He has not come to realize that such struggles-which emanate from the will of a people-collectively cannot be extinguished by force alone.

Dictators such as Abiy Ahmed and Bashar al-Assad never seem to learn a very simple fact: that power, which is built on the grounds of repression, can only be fragile. This need for justice and dignity on the part of the people keeps pressing, and military strength and propaganda cannot suppress it permanently. Instead of learning from the failures of those before him, Abiy continues to double down on repression, ensuring that his legacy, like those of other dictators, will be one of infamy and disgrace. History is littered with examples of autocrats who thought themselves invincible yet fell at the hands of their people. Abiy Ahmed still has an opportunity—though rapidly diminishing—to change course, acknowledge the suffering he has caused, and seek reconciliation with the Ethiopian people. But every day he chooses violence over dialogue brings him closer to the inevitable fate awaiting all oppressive rulers: rejection, isolation, and eventual downfall.

The struggles of the Amhara people, along with other oppressed groups in Ethiopia and those of the Syrian people, stand as testaments to the resilience of human dignity. Their resistance serves as a reminder that dictators, no matter how powerful they may seem, are ultimately powerless in the face of a united and determined people.

The stories of these leaders—from Bashar al-Assad to Abiy Ahmed—are cautionary tales of how power leads to ruin when wielded without accountability or regard for the people. They highlight the need for genuine leadership that values its citizens’ well-being over the pursuit of unchecked authority. History shows us that dictators, no matter how powerful, ultimately face rejection and disgrace. The question is whether the current rulers will choose a different path before it’s too late—or whether they, too, will succumb to the inevitable fall that awaits all tyrants.

It is evident that the brutal dictator, Abiy Ahmed, has learned nothing from the collapse of dictatorial regimes throughout history. Even today, as Bashar al-Assad watches his own political and moral decay deepen, this could serve as a sobering lesson for anyone willing to reflect. Yet Abiy Ahmed appears incapable of grasping the parallels, continuing down a path of repression and violence.

In recent days, signs of Abiy’s growing fear and paranoia have become increasingly apparent. For the past six years, his regime has waged systematic violence, particularly against the Amhara people in Oromia and beyond. These crimes, which have included killings, mass displacements, and systemic oppression, weighed severely on his conscience, as indicated by his erratic behavior and apparent fear for the future. Despite his attempts to cling to power, his acts reveal a man haunted by the atrocities he has committed. His dread of justice is palpable, and no amount of propaganda or deflection will shield him from accountability. Eventually, he will face justice tomorrow, years from now, or in exile.

A troubling pattern has emerged in Abiy Ahmed’s behavior. When his genocidal foot soldiers commit atrocities in Oromia or elsewhere, his response has often been to deflect attention through symbolic gestures, such as planting trees or launching public initiatives meant to distract from the reality of his crimes. These hollow acts are insulting and reveal his terror over the consequences of his actions. Rather than taking responsibility or attempting to redress the harm inflicted on innocent people, Abiy doubles down, ignoring the blood on his hands while presenting himself as a statesman engaged in nation-building.

This facade, however, is wearing thin. The international community and the Ethiopian people are increasingly aware of the disparity between his public image and the atrocities committed under his orders. His actions show a leader terrified of the reckoning that awaits him yet unwilling to change course. Doubling down on his crimes is unacceptable and a surefire way to deepen his eventual downfall. History teaches us that no dictator escapes justice indefinitely, no matter how powerful they may seem. Abiy Ahmed’s crimes against the Amhara and other Ethiopian communities are well-documented, and he will inevitably face the consequences of his actions. Abiy fails to understand that planting trees or staging public spectacles cannot erase the pain and suffering of those he has victimized. The Ethiopian people will not forget the lives lost, the communities shattered, or the future stolen by his regime. His terrorized attempts to cling to power only underscore his awareness that the walls are closing in. Abiy Ahmed’s reign of terror will not last forever, and justice, no matter how delayed, will prevail.

The lesson for Abiy—and any leader who chooses oppression over justice—is that power gained and maintained through bloodshed is unsustainable. Even now, he has a chance to change course, reckon with his actions, and seek reconciliation. But every day he delays, every crime he doubles down on, makes that possibility more remote. As history has shown time and time again, dictators who fail to heed the lessons of those who fell before them inevitably face the same fate: rejection, disgrace, and the judgment of those they sought to oppress.

Unlearned Lessons of Past Brutality: The Dictator’s Faith

Brute dictators have left bleeding scars in history. First comes the emergence of fascism in Europe, brought about by Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy during the 1920s and 1930s. Both chiefs tore apart the elected governments in their countries to install an authoritarian rule. In both situations, their leadership relied on manipulating society’s emotions and misrepresenting propaganda to keep people in a state of perpetual dread and division.

In Germany, Hitler succeeded in using the economic destitution and national humiliation hanging in the air after the First World War to brew a pernicious doctrine. Throughout the 1930s, he propounded the mantra that all the tragedies occurring to Germany were the works of specific groups of people—especially those from the Jewish community. He demonized the Jewish population among them as state enemies through unfailing propaganda from the Nazi regime. This hate-soaked narration turned into one of the darkest moments in history—the Holocaust. Six million Jews were murdered in it.

Despite his initial military successes, it was Hitler’s megalomania and bestiality that brought him to his ruin. In 1945, when the Allied armies reached Berlin, Hitler, in company with his nearest associates—including Eva Braun, his long-time companion, and Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister—preferred suicide over surrender. Their bodies were burned in a bunker, leaving behind a legacy of unprecedented cruelty and destruction.

It was an equally terrible fate for Mussolini but was more public. He was the only Axis leader to have been overthrown by his people—after two decades of fascist rule in Italy—nearing the end of World War II. Mussolini was captured and executed by Italian partisans in 1945. The body of the former dictator, along with that of his mistress, Clara Petacci, was displayed in Milan, hung upside down as a grim symbol of people’s revenge against tyranny.

Both Hitler and Mussolini exemplify how fascist regimes destroy societies and finally result in the league of justice, which leaves behind all their evil legacies in tatters.

These two figures remain critical case studies in history, with strong lessons for future generations. Their ascendance and fall should be instructed in schools to underscore the consequences of unchecked power, propaganda, and manipulation of societal divisions.

Other notorious dictators of the 20th century who gave immense suffering to their respective countries include Idi Amin Dada of Uganda, who ruled with an iron fist and was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the 1970s, and Mengistu Hailemariam of Ethiopia, who ordered mass killings during the so-called Red Terror in the late 1970s. Elsewhere, the apartheid leaders in South Africa institutionalized racial oppression for decades, creating deep social and economic inequalities. The so-called communist regimes, under the leadership of individuals such as Nicolae Ceaușescu in Eastern Europe, followed oppressive policies no different from their idol, Joseph Stalin. His reign in the Soviet Union saw widespread purges and forced famines that cost the lives of millions, leaving behind a grim legacy of authoritarian rule masquerading as ideology.

Their histories stand not as examples but as cautionary tales, disgraced in the annals of time. They remind us that tyranny, propaganda, and division inevitably lead to suffering and downfall. Their lives will enable us to teach future generations about democratic values, justice, and the vigilance that must be manifested so that history will not once again repeat itself.