Reflections and thoughts from the article:

“How to Lose a Country Gracefully,” by Bill Keller

March 1, 2011New York Times

1985 Mikhail Gorbachev became leader of the USSR

Gorbachev was a reform-minded politician Seeking to change the gerontocracy (rule by

the old) of the Soviet Union Inherited a Soviet Union in crisis -Political system riddled with corruption and

apathy -The deadly accident at the nuclear reactor

in Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986 (demonstrating the inefficiency of the Soviet system)

The Afghan War raging on, killing more Soviet troops, draining the country’s finances and accomplishing nothing

Beyond that, the non-Russian republics of the Soviet Union were starting become independence-minded, threatening to break up the USSR itself

The USSR was also falling behind in the arms race and did not have the economic resources to catch up with the United States

Gorbachev’s reforms -Perestroika (“restructuring”) tried to strengthen the Soviet economy emphasized local control over central

planning allowed limited free enterprise and

loosened rules regarding private property set into place some of the foundations of a

free-market economy much of perestroika was similar to what

Deng Xiaoping was doing in China in the 1980s

the difference was that economic liberalization led to prosperity in China but not in the USSR due to ingrained inefficiency in the Soviet system, dating back to the Stalin period

- Glasnost Gorbachev allowed political and cultural

liberalization at the same time provided for greater freedom of the press

and media, frank discussion of the Soviet Union’s clouded past (especially the Stalin period), public criticism of contemporary problems, and exposure of political corruption or workplace abuses

hope that glasnost would motivate the Soviet population to carry out perestroika in the political and economic spheres

Gorbachev began to loosen the Soviet Union’s grip on Eastern Europe

And then on the Soviet Union as well By 1991, the Soviet Union had collapsed On December 25, 1991, Gorbachev resigned

as leader of the Soviet Union At the same time, he declared an end to the

USSR itself Soviet Communism, whose birth in 1917 had

been one of the major events of the early twentieth century, did not live to see the twenty-first

Apartheid in South Africa a policy of extreme racial segregation turned South Africa into one of Africa’s

most repressive nations Groups like the African National Congress

opposed the white government The ANC’s leader, Nelson Mandela, gained

the status of sympathetic dissident during his long imprisonment (1964-1990) by the white authorities

In 1994, free elections resulted in the ANC’s victory

Mandela became the country’s president

F. W. de Klerk As Minister of National Education, F.W. de

Klerk was a supporter of segregated universities, and as a leader of the National Party in Transvaal, he was not known to advocate reform

In February 1989, de Klerk was elected leader of the National Party and in September 1989 he was elected State President

In his first speech after assuming the party leadership he called for a nonracist South Africa and for negotiations about the country's future

He lifted the ban on the ANC and released Nelson Mandela

He brought apartheid to an end and opened the way for the drafting of a new constitution for the country based on the principle of one person, one vote

Muammar Qaddafi Inspired by the pan-Arabism ideals of

nationalistic Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser, a 27-year-old Gaddafi successfully organized a coup to overthrow Libyan King Idris I in 1969

After taking power, he launched a "cultural revolution" during which he removed all traces of former colonial and foreign influence, ranging from street signs and village names to the economic and political structure of the country

In 1977, Gaddafi invented a system of government unique to Libya called the "Jamahiriya," or state of the masses, in which the nation is supposedly governed by the populace through local councils

Though Gaddafi technically holds no formal office through this system and is officially known only by the title Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution, he is still considered the de facto leader of the nation

The Jamahiriya, however, has been dismissed by several international observers, including the CIA, as a military dictatorship

Gaddafi has sponsored revolutionary efforts in Chad, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Morocco, the Philippines and Iran, including providing financial support to the IRA and the Palestinian Black September movement responsible for the 1972 Munich Olympic killings

After two Libyans were accused of planting a bomb in 1988 on Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, and killed 270 people, Gaddafi's refusal to extradite the suspects to America or Britain led to drastic U.N. sanctions

Gaddafi finally admitted responsibility for the attack in 2003 and paid more than $2.7 billion to the families of the victims, initiating the end of Libya's international isolation

Gaddafi's personal bodyguard, the Amazonian guard, is composed of women who are martial arts experts and highly-trained in the use of weapons

Protests against the flamboyant leader, famous for his all female bodyguard, have spread

And across Libya, a determined populace is keen to depose the long serving ruler

Unwilling to be forced out like Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia's Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Gaddafi allegedly ordered a violent crackdown on protesters, but the death and bloodshed appears to have galvanized the protesters

The Article’s premise

The reporter covered two of the greatest losers of the last century Mikhail Gorbachev lost Russia and all of its colonies and F. W. de Klerk lost the richest country in Africa

While people are understandably thrilled by the courage of those who stand up to power — from Tiananmen Square to Tahrir Square and all the streets that now teem with the young and freedom-hungry there is another heroism, scarce and undervalued, that accrues to those who know how to stand down

Perhaps Gorbachev and de Klerk have a lesson to share with dictators and difficult times

It is always tricky comparing one country’s experience with another’s, but in the examples of the great losers there are some broad lessons for all the countries that are now convulsed by the revolutionary spirit — and for those of us who watch and assess them, not to mention those who bankroll and arm them

Mikhail Gorbachev lost Russia and all of its colonies in the last century

And F. W. de Klerk lost the richest country in Africa in the last century

What Gorbachev and de Klerk did was not always pretty, and neither man is much celebrated in his own country these days

Each relinquished the power of an abusive elite without subjecting his country to a civil bloodbath

Afterward, they did not flee to the comfort of Swiss bank accounts

On the contrary, they managed a feat that is almost unthinkable in most of today’s erupting autocracies: after succumbing to democracy, they contributed to its legitimacy by becoming candidates for high office — and losing, fair and square

De Klerk, the last white president of a South Africa that oppressed blacks for centuries, actually pressed the flesh and pleaded for votes in black townships, professing a kind of civic kinship

De Klerk and Gorbachev were triumphant partners in their own defeats, and thus in their countries’ victories

Both Gorbachev and de Klerk began as reformers — that is, politicians devoted to making a dreadful system less dreadful, not to actually abolishing it

Perhaps because of the pressure exerted by years of international boycotts and decades of domestic insurgency, de Klerk was quicker than Gorbachev to recognize that his ruling party’s life project — a South Africa carved into a commonwealth of separate and independent nations, poor black ones and prosperous white ones — was cruelly absurd and ungovernable

Gorbachev, however, thought he was saving the Communist Party, right up to the day that party stalwarts tried to overthrow him

Those regimes along the Mediterranean rim that are trying to hold back an angry tide by shuffling the cabinet or promising so-called reforms — Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia — may buy themselves some time, but revolutions have a way of overrunning reformers

The regimes that have sent their thugs against the press and tried to unplug the Internet are right to fear the media

According to the author, watching how the seep of information stirred ordinary Russians from a paralyzing fear was one of the true joys of covering Moscow’s spring

The Cold War voice of Radio Liberty, the underground copies of Solzhenitsyn and especially Gorbachev’s own attempts to deputize the Russian press by letting it expose corruption and incompetence — they all chipped away at the invincibility of the Soviet Union

Today it is Al Jazeera; Wiki Leaked cables about the extravagant lifestyles of the ruling elites; and social media that are the fuel of popular insurgency

This is how the unhappy learn that their complaints are justified and that they have company

And with their vast reach and immediacy, Facebook and Twitter are not only sources of information but also organizing tools

Gorbachev freed Andrei Sakharov from exile; de Klerk released Nelson Mandela

Both leaders then enlisted their liberated adversaries as negotiating partners, buying some credibility at home and abroad

These partnerships inevitably fell victim to mistrust, but they helped assure that the end of the old order was managed rather than catastrophic

Armies are more than instruments They are also constituencies with families to

feed, jobs to protect, a stake in the future, a yearning for respect

If a leader can command his army only with threats of summary execution or by holding family members hostage, as Libya’s desperate despot, Muammar el-Qaddafi, is reported to have done, it is safe to bet that his days are numbered

One of the smartest things de Klerk did to prevent the civil war many feared in South Africa was to negotiate job security for the apartheid-era army

And one of the smartest things Nelson Mandela did was accede to this demand, so that when he became the first president of free South Africa, he inherited a military that regarded him as their paymaster

It is not a coincidence that the surge points of the current political unrest tend to be funerals, as they were in South Africa and several restive Soviet republics

From the massacre in Sharpeville to the protesters crushed under the tank treads of a rogue army unit in Soviet Lithuania, from the persecuted fruit vendor who immolated himself in Tunisia to the crowds strafed in Libya, the dead live on as evidence of a regime’s cruelty

And few cultures cherish their martyrs as devoutly as Islam does

But after the dictator has been deposed, problems may still exist

Consider Egypt - where the army runs the private sector, the mullahs may or may not be spoiling to impose shariah law, the tourists have been scared off, poverty and unemployment are rife and any day the score-settling will begin

Today, Russia and South Africa are disillusioned democracies

Wretched poverty, crime and bad governance bedevil South Africa

Russia is corrupt and intolerant of political dissent, sometimes brutally so

Yet each country has grown bigger middle classes, expanded individual liberties and mostly kept its armies at peace

And if the Russians or South Africans run out of patience with their imperfect leaders, they have some hope of remedies other than the streets

The author’s final wishes : Gorbachev turned 80 earlier this month, and de Klerk will be 75 soon

Happy birthday to both, and here’s to those who make history by gracefully getting out of its way