Revolutionaries never retire!

Fidel Castro is back. Although without the usual endless diatribes, his short speech in the parliament showed his determination to continue leading his people. Weak as he is, no sign of retirement can be smelt in the air. As Fidel once said, "revolutionaries never retire."

Indeed, they don't. Mao, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung. All of them died at the height of their power. Similarly, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Chiang Kai-Shek and other non-communist dictators didn't give up their power voluntarily until they were beaten by enemies or their healths.

Some people asserted that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have been one of the greatest leaders in the history of Germany. Why don't they simply give up their power early to secure a good legacy? Because they believe they can do better to realize their ideals? Hitler might have thought so, but history proved it wrong.

The desire for power is certainly a main reason. When Alvaro Uribe reluctantly accept the decision of the Supreme Court that he wouldn't be allowed to seek a third term, Colombians felt relieved. They certainly admired Sr. Uribe, who has brought huge positive change to his nation in his two terms. But endless amendments of constitution will remind us of their increasingly dictatorial neighbor, Venezuela. Losing him is a loss, but the political structure is strengthened. Uribe will also be remembered as a great leader in the history. There is rumor that Uribe would like to run for the mayor of Bogota. The lust of power is unstoppable. But fortunately, Uribe has chosen to come to Georgetown. I hope he can stay longer to let his successor rule without his shadow.

Russians are not that lucky. Mr. Putin found a better way to stick to power. In countries without a strong rule of law, positions in the government doesn't necessarily represent power. Deng Xiaoping ruled China as a Vice Premier, and after his semi-retirement, as the Chairman of Military Commission. But his influence was paramount, and different factions in the government needed to seek his approval to gain an upper hand. In Russia, Putin re-interpret the power distribution between the President and the Prime Minister. People are speculating whether he will return to the office after 2012, but it seems that being Prime Minister can prolong his influence forever.

But Uribe and Putin are not dictators. They were elected, and they are genuinely popular. What about the dictators without democratic mandate? Being in power can certainly give them more time to collect wealth as what many African leaders did. But when you are rich enough, why not leave the office and take their time to enjoy those wealth?

I think fear is the best reason to explain. Without the rule of law, there is no protection of former leaders. They can have immunity for life (Mr. Nazarbayev did that), but that can be revoked. They cannot even trust their proteges, because there isn't a lack of examples of betrayal. For leaders of rogue states like Bashir from Sudan, there's one more reason to stay put. As Professor Vreeland said, the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court only strengthened their determination to stay in power for fear of being extradited by their successors. Gripping the power in their hands is the only way to prevent retribution. Passing power to their children can ensure that their tombs and legacies will be properly guarded.

But there are examples that show us transfer of power is possible without a liberal democratic system. Since 1980s, Chinese leadership has adopted the rule of retirement. For different levels of officials, there is a mandatory retirement age, up to 68 years old for politburo members. The welfare is luxurious, with private cars and private secretaries funded by taxpayers. Although the previous leaders keep their influence to some extent, meddling is rare. Political struggle exists, but no shots have been directed to retired top leaders. Apparently, China is not a good example of rule of law, but the ruling party can be run with proper self-regulation to ensure the continual survival of the party. This is certainly an interesting case to study. For Fidel, Chinese leaders are no longer revolutionaries. I think they wouldn't mind as long as there are golf courts for them to enjoy their lives.