Despots and dictators in Africa- Can Stockholm_Syndrome Explain Why they remain in power

I think the most asked question is why do Africans continue to tolerate despots and dictators despite them continuously complaining of abuse and dysfunctional economies. No one answer seems to explain why this happens and the explanations vary from fear, intimidation and harassment to the use of state machinery to repress the population.

I think the answer is Stockholm syndrome. The population has gotten accustomed to the abuse they suffer at the hands of the leaders that they simply acquiesce to them. The level of abuse extends from brutal and violent repression of voices of dissent, censorship, restricted movement, economic depravation, poverty, poor access to nutrition and health facilities, disdain and arrogance the list is endless. All these factors combined create a thoroughly abused population that seems so endeared to their brutish leaders.

What is also apparent is that after a considerable period of time the populace becomes gullible to any explanation offered by the leaders as why they are suffering or funny enough when they entertain ideas of removing them talk of regime change or neo colonial forces operating against the beloved leaders they buy the statements hook line and sinker.

This endearment and gullible acceptance of the explanations proffered by the political leaders seems to suggest to me that Stockholm syndrome is the only explanation that may account for the continued existence of despotic leaders in Africa. Why else would populations of millions of educated and seemingly reasonable people allow leaders to rule for years on end without saying enough is enough.

In every region in Africa be it in the immediate past or currently there are clear examples of regimes that make most people ask why don’t you just get rid of him. Southern Africa has had Kenneth Kaunda in Zambia; Angola has had dos’ Santos. While Zimbabwe has since 1980 had Mugabe. The Central African Republic and DRC also are real examples of leaders refusing to go and it seems the people are not able to do much about it. Uganda offers an example in East Africa while the examples of Gadaffi offer an example from North Africa, while Cameroon has had its leader for over 40 years as well as Equatorial Guinea have similar leaders.

The arrogance or disdain of these leaders is seen in various examples be it lavish lifestyles led by their family members but also the approach to rule. Some leaders have appointed their children to key Cabinet and institutional positions in this regard Angola, and Equatorial Guinea comes to mind. In other nations wives to the President’s have been appointed to cabinet posts in this regard Uganda comes to mind. Such behavior simply demonstrates that the leaders are of the view that the populace will do nothing to them.

What then enhances my belief that the syndrome is real in Africa is that despite the magnitude of abuse and general neglect from the leaders there are ardent and die-hard supporters you will find in the numerous countries. The worst part of it all is that the most under privileged and those who wallow in absolute poverty are the leading supporters of these despots. How can a person whose future is being extinguished by the greed of one person continue to root for them unless of course they are now so endeared to the leaders they will retain them no matter what common sense dictates.

Should any external force or grouping seek to intervene these marginalized and abused people close rank and resist intervention. If this is not a clearer explanation of Stockholm syndrome then I don’t know