Some leaders greet unrest with quick, violent responses

Every day brings new reports of democracy movements in the Middle East and nearby states and new examples of how much more dangerous it is to protest in some nations. No leader wants to go quietly into whatever dark night follows his days of despotism, but some are more willing and able to react violently to any challenge of their authority.

Not surprisingly, Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi has shown himself to be ready, willing and able to crush street demonstrations before they gain a foothold. Perhaps it does surprise those who not long ago were hailing Gadhafi as a new man, one the United States might even view as an ally. But those folks should be in the minority.

Dictators who groom their sons to succeed them are not inclined to abandon that vision just because the rabble tires to speak up — and that model holds as true in Libya as it does in North Korea.

These are interesting times in predominantly Arab states, especially those where oil wealth is concentrated in the ruling class and where tens of millions of ordinary people — educated and uneducated alike — face dismal futures.

Over the weekend, there were signs of nascent revolt, with varying degrees of bloodshed, in Libya, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen and Jordan. The uprisings have some commonalities, an inspiration derived from the events in Egypt and Tunisia, and the liberating effects of new social media.

Uneven match

But it is doubtful that Facebook can compete with machine guns, which are what Libyan forces were firing when they opened up on mourners marching in a funeral for anti-government protesters in the eastern city of Benghazi on Sunday.

The kinder, gentler face that Gadhafi put on as he approved compensation for victims of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, quickly disappeared when he perceived a threat from his own people. In one case, Gadhafi was trying to gain Western acceptance and the dropping of economic sanctions against Libya. In the other, he was determined to protect his own skin and that of his heirs.

Unlike former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when he was being challenged in Cairo, Gadhafi does not appear to care a whit about what other nations — friend or foe — may say about his methods. He is simply determined to protect his interests, regardless of the cost in blood of others.

The frightening possibility is that other leaders will weigh the results or Mubarak’s response against those of Gadhafi and choose his way rather than the highway.

Democracy movements may be inevitable, but their success is not. The only weapon civiized nations have against leaders such as Gadhafi — short of military intervention, which really isn’t an option — is the threat of economic sanctions. But that threat is effective only if it gains nearly universal support.