Bashar al-Assad’s secretive departure from Syria on December 8 highlights the precarious fate of dictators. While he claims humanitarian motives for escaping to Moscow, the irony of his situation is palpable given his oppressive rule and history of violence. The article explores the common outcomes for fallen tyrants, contrasting historical examples of exile and violent ends, and reflects on the evolving risks faced by despots in contemporary politics.
Fleeing in Shadows: The Escape of Bashar al-Assad
On the cold night of December 8, Bashar al-Assad made a hasty exit from his “People’s Palace” in Damascus, slipping away under the cover of darkness and fog. His journey began at a Russian military base before he ultimately arrived in Moscow. His official Telegram channel later asserted that this departure was unplanned, emphasizing that he never intended to abandon Syria; rather, it was a matter of ensuring his safety.
The Kremlin’s justification for his relocation was couched in “humanitarian reasons.” Such statements seem deeply ironic, especially from a leader who has maintained a tyrannical grip on Syria for nearly 25 years, employing chemical weapons against his own citizens and presiding over the deaths and imprisonment of countless individuals. Assad’s case serves as a poignant example of how fallen tyrants are treated in today’s political landscape.
The Fate of Disgraced Dictators
Historically, the notion of retired tyrants was largely confined to those who passed power down through dynasties. In contrast, monarchs, despots, and dictators not only grappled with the decline of their power but often faced dire consequences. Unlike democratically elected politicians who could resign, these leaders typically faced swift retribution when they lost their grip on power. Exile was often seen as the most favorable outcome, while many met violent ends or took their own lives, akin to the fate of Hitler.
The mid-20th century marked a notable shift in this trend, as approximately one in five dictators who lost power after World War II sought refuge abroad. Political scientists Abel Escribà-Folch and Daniel Krcmaric highlighted that 84% of these exiled leaders only stepped down during revolts, often facing dire consequences if they delayed their retreat. For instance, Nicolae Ceaușescu’s refusal to acknowledge the discontent of the Romanian populace led to his arrest and execution during a hastily arranged trial.
The Cold War era served as a protective shield for many dictators, who were often supported by major powers as long as they acted as bulwarks against opposing ideologies. Dictators like Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, who was ousted in 1986, were flown out of their countries on planes laden with wealth, while others like Jean-Claude Duvalier of Haiti found temporary solace in luxury abroad.
However, the Shah of Persia’s exit was marked by disarray. After being overthrown during the 1979 revolution, he embarked on a tumultuous journey across several countries before succumbing to cancer in Egypt. His vast fortunes, once safely stashed in foreign accounts, became contentious topics in international legal disputes following his ousting.
Even notorious figures like Idi Amin, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, were granted refuge, living comfortably in Saudi Arabia after fleeing Uganda. Likewise, Mobutu, the “King of Thieves,” found a peaceful residence in Morocco after being overthrown. The changing tides of politics have made exile a more precarious option for today’s despots, illustrating the evolving nature of power and its consequences.