Michael Ledeen’s point is reminiscent of Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s distinction between totalitarians and authoritarians. She also thought (with the Soviet Union as her prime exemplar) that the former could not be reformed. One might quibble with this point in the following way: by the 1980′s, and probably earlier, the leaders of Soviet Union had lost their belief in marxism and thus abandoned the ideology that underpinned their totalitarianism. As a result the later Soviet Union had evolved into a rather cynical authoritarian system. And according to Kirkpatrick, such systems are at least somewhat capable of being reformed.

She would probably defend her idea by saying that as long as the USSR remained totalitarian it was incapable of reform. And that is most probably right.

Nonetheless, we should open for signs that any of the malefactors in the Muslim world are evolving into authoritarianism. I don’t see much. However, there is one thing that strikes me as unprecedented. That is the action of the Arab League in opposing Qaddafi and in defending human rights in Syria. Admittedly, the League’s efforts have been weak and incompetent, but hasn’t it been the case previously that this kind of critical attitude toward fellow dictators is considered taboo? “Human rights” creeping into the Muslim lexicon could indicate a welcome crack in the foundations of some of these extremist states.