African countries have traditionally been very good at demonstrating this, unfortunately. Almost any leader of government south of the Sahel and north of South Africa from independence to about 10 years ago could have been thrown into a dark abyss without second thought and even Amnesty International would have just muttered a "Wait, they deserve a fair tr.. oh! never mind!".
But because that actually was happened more often than not, each one of them clung to power for as long as possible – which in some cases was (and is!) surprisingly long: Mugabe is at it since 1987.
In many cases, these dictators actually started out somewhat promising. Mugabe, for example, came to power against a backdrop or actual injustices, which he actually did something about (although what he did resulted in disaster). But spend enough years with absolute power, surrounded by yes-men, but constantly fearing the yes-I-have-knife-man and it starts to do strange things to your psyche.
It's not the only mechanism – there are enough examples in other countries of politicians overstaying their welcome. And it doesn't quite apply as neatly to anyone but the very top. But it's part of it.
Which is why it was so encouraging to see how the crisis in The Gambia was solved a month ago. You didn't even hear about it? Well, a decade earlier, you wouldn't have heard the end of the bloody war currently ravaging the west African country of... Part of the solution was guaranteed protection for the outgoing guy (+family and his mysteriously large wealth).
> IT's a tight rope to walk, but there's a system to the madness in regards to presidents: if you punish them to the degree that (parts of) the public demand, you'll almost certainly make it a losing proposition for any of them to ever resign.
I'm not sure that applies in the U.S. 1) We're talking about prosecution under the law, not by popular demand, and 2) being in office doesn't protect them from (most) prosecution, and they can be impeached.
They don't even trust someone from their regime not to fuck them up if they retire.
Nixon was already shamed but it would have served the country no good to have it go further and be dragged out for years and become a distracting spectacle. Plus his reasoning was sound, a pardon is a presumption of guilt and acceptance of it. In a way President Obama gifted Chelsea Manning by only commuting her sentence. The use of pardons and commutations has all sorts of hidden meanings
Lots of criminals are shamed; that never relieves them from trial and punishment.
> it would have served the country no good
I disagree. It sets a precedent that the powerful are above punishment and reduces deterrence. Now Presidents know that they can do almost anything and not be tried for it.
>the Senate committee decided early on not to pursue the President, not only because he was too old and lacked the mental ability to fully understand what happened, and had too little time left in office, but because the Senators "honestly thought that the country didn't need another Watergate. They were urgently hoping to avoid a crisis.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_committees_inves...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
The Iran Contra people probably helped initiate our present quagmire in the Middle East during Bush II's term:
Elliott Abrams served as served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs and then Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy during Bush II's term.
John Marlan Poindexter got a job on Bush II's DARPA.
Duane Clarridge got involved as Ben Carson's foreign policy advisor during his presidential run. So these people are still tied to the White House to this day.