MOMENTOUS political events have been occurring in the region Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Syria. Much has been written about each one of them in isolation; very little about what they represent collectively. This oversight can cause us to miss some essentialinsights into the contours of the emerging world.

Despite their individual dynamics, one can discern some obviously common features in these independent events.

Consider all the above-named countries except for Myanmar; in each one of them the rulers were compelled to make lastminute escapes into exile by forces opposed to their authoritarianism. In three of them the rulers had been well-entrenched for years and seemingly impregnable Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh for 15 years, the Rajapaksas in Sri Lanka for 20, the Assads in Syria for over 50.

Consider also the speed at which the changes occurred when they finally did; a few months in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, a few weeks in Syria. It also did not matter how well or poorly the countries were doing economically. There was near collapse in Afghanistan but remarkable achievements in Bangladesh, which had outpaced its neighbours according to many standard indicators. Economics and politics had become quite disconnected; people had unmet aspirations that went beyond material gains.

Of course, the change did not materialise out of thin air; it was building up over time largely unnoticed and seemingly under control. For the rulers, it was always a few `miscreants` creating trouble or some foreign hand that would be dealt a crushing blow. This was palpably untrue, but a fiction that was sustainable as long as some key region remained loyal to the regime.

When dissent breached that zone of support, it was as if an invisible tipping point was crossed and the defensive walls crumbled rapidly and almost without resistance.

Even significant differences within the countries point clearly in one direction.

External forces were indeed involved in Afghanistan and Syria, but that was not the case in either Sri Lanka or Bangladesh. This suggests that external intervention is not necessary for the overthrow of authoritarian and unpopular regimes; purely internal dynamics can be sufficient to remove regimes lacking legitimacy. Oppressive rule reinforces popular resentment that cannot be suppressed forever. An implosion is inevitable, only a matter of time.

One might note that of the countries mentioned above, none except Myanmar was under military rule. It could be argued that this might explain why their rulers were overthrown without prolonged con-flict. But even in Myanmar the military is on the defensive, continuing to lose ground to rebel forces. This suggests that the military can delay the inevitable but not necessarily foreclose the outcome.

This conclusion is readily borne out by history. There was a period not so long ago when military rule was common across Latin America, in Africa, Turkiye, and South Korea. Now it is an endangered species. It survives in a few holdouts like Neanderthals must have done before they became extinct. Or like dinosaurs whose small brains prevented them from negotiating the increasing complexity of their environment. In either case, to those with open eyes, the writing is visible on the wall.

What matters is not how long autocratic regimes survive but what they leave behind.

Progressive forces survived in Sri Lanka despite the purges of the Rajapaksas; Bangladesh had an iconic individual around whom the opposition could come together.

Afghanistan, Myanmar and Syria appear a lot more chaotic. They are like a few otherholdouts, yet to witness change, where progressives have been decimated and there are no individuals left with the stature to command universal respect and trust. In such cases, descent into prolonged civil war as in Sudan or takeover by fundamentalist groups as in Afghanistan remains a very real outcome.The conclusion one can derive from these case studiesisthatchangeisinevitable; nothing can last forever if the aspirations of the people are denied or crushed beyond a point. It is also clear that some forms of rule are outdated and harmful and destined for the dust heap of history.

What remains unknown is the shape authoritarian rulers will leave the polity in before they are forced to board the plane.

What is less to be doubted is that the longer they last the worse would be the outcome.

At the same time, it is equally clear that autocrats would fight to the last to protect their privileges, even at the cost of breaking up their countries and pushing them into darkness and ignorance. Those who gratuitously advise them to reform should reflect on the lessons of history to realise their naivete. • The wúteris the author of Pakistan: Clash of Ideas, Aks Publications 2024.