Commentary on empire, Arab Spring, and mention of Robert D. Kaplan's affiliations

33 something which, in turn, is owed to its imperial superstructure. And as that superstructure became too unwieldy, an emperor like the gruff soldier Diocletian could allow for the division of the empire itself into several administrative parts, thus furthering its life span. America, for its part, is unique in its division of federal, state and local power over a vast continental landscape, allowing for the full expression of its boisterous democracy. Say what you will about the deficiencies of the United States and particularly those of Rome, but they both indicate a very difficult truth central to the outcome of the Arab Spring: it is not about the expressions of freedom in Tahrir Square so much as it is about the building of legitimate institutions to replace illegitimate ones. And because institutions are hierarchical— and social media like Twitterand Facebookdismantle existing hierarchies—revolutions enabled by new technology do not necessarily lead to the building of governing organizations. Criticism is not enough, someone must wield power; hopefully in a way less coercive than before. Meanwhile, the Arab Spring has raised the pressure on autocrats the world over to truly be good—or at least better. Though, even if they are, they can never ultimately get it right, as demonstrated by Mill’s example of Marcus Aurelius. Robert D. Kaplan is a foreign correspondent for The Atlantic, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington and a member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board. His most recent book is Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power (Random House, 2010). HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_032203