The article links to another article that offers this quote from Gorbachev's recent book:
> “When Vladimir Putin became president, he inherited chaos. ... I can’t imagine how one could act under the ‘textbook of democracy’ in these conditions to find a way out of an almost catastrophic situation. ... The president of the country had no other choice but to take decisive actions. Some of his actions were interpreted as authoritarian and part of society was critical toward them. … If the aim of authority is to create conditions for developing a strong modern democracy, then I’m ready to support the president even if I disagree with some of his individual actions and decisions.”
Has there been a single example in which a strongman government peacefully gave way to "strong modern democracy?"
If anything it seems that strongman governments beget strongman governments. Eventually, something slips and all hell breaks loose. At that point the only way out is to find a leader willing to take decisive actions. And so on.
One of the biggest problems with the peaceful transition idea seems to be corruption. The strongman necessarily breeds corruption because his form of government is incompatible with rule of law. So even if the top-level institutions undergo a superficial makeover, the underlying rot of corruption persists, forever standing in the way. Frustration with the whole reform experiment builds until some event causes popular frustration to boil over, ushering in the return of the strongman.
Of the two, the case of Spain seems more in line with strongman government transition. In that case, King Juan Carlos I appears to have played a pivotal role in ending an attempted coup and ushering in the transition.
All actions of the state are violent; it seems that strongman military dictatorship is generally the only way a tyranny is reset, and whether it becomes a democracy or not depends largely on the personalities of the coup.
> “When Vladimir Putin became president, he inherited chaos. ... I can’t imagine how one could act under the ‘textbook of democracy’ in these conditions to find a way out of an almost catastrophic situation. ... The president of the country had no other choice but to take decisive actions. Some of his actions were interpreted as authoritarian and part of society was critical toward them. … If the aim of authority is to create conditions for developing a strong modern democracy, then I’m ready to support the president even if I disagree with some of his individual actions and decisions.”
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/10/29/the-biggest-takeaw...
Has there been a single example in which a strongman government peacefully gave way to "strong modern democracy?"
If anything it seems that strongman governments beget strongman governments. Eventually, something slips and all hell breaks loose. At that point the only way out is to find a leader willing to take decisive actions. And so on.
One of the biggest problems with the peaceful transition idea seems to be corruption. The strongman necessarily breeds corruption because his form of government is incompatible with rule of law. So even if the top-level institutions undergo a superficial makeover, the underlying rot of corruption persists, forever standing in the way. Frustration with the whole reform experiment builds until some event causes popular frustration to boil over, ushering in the return of the strongman.