Iranian protests continue.
It all makes me recall the sad fate of the Shah of Iran. His regime fell under far less difficult circumstances. Iran had been developing rapidly, was about as rich as Spain at the time, was dominant in the region, and was the fifth-largest military power in the world. The Shah was an autocrat, but a moderate one, who was generally inclined to commute death sentences and declare amnesties. His worst vice seemed to be personal extravagance.
That, and his moderation on matters of religion, which alienated the mullahs.
Governments fall not because they are evil or repressive, but because they appear incompetent.
The Shah, depressed as a result of cancer and the drugs used to treat it, had become indecisive.
Or witness Louis XVI. He lost his crown and the head that held it up not because he was repressive, but because he was bankrupt, and kept changing his mind.
Yet the worst of governments can continue, seemingly indefinitely. Witness the survival of the Kim dynasty in North Korea, despite appalling famines. Witness the ability of Assad to hang on in Syria.
Nor is it just that people fear a repressive government too much. It is not terror that holds them in thrall. That cannot explain the continuing popularity of Mao in China. Stalin in Russia too still has his supporters. These men were, objectively, as bad as Hitler. The difference is not in the extent of their crimes, but that Hitler lost his war, and they didn’t.
It has been argued that the British Empire was doomed, as much as anything, by the loss of Singapore in the Second World War. It made them look incompetent. Their subject peoples around the world no longer looked up to them.
This is now the crisis faced by the Iranian government: they seem to have been revealed as all bluster, but incompetent.
And this is also the crisis faced by “the elites” worldwide—the clerisy, the professions. They are increasingly being shown up by the new, freer flow of information as not really knowing what they are doing.