The Playbook: How To Rise And Fall As An Autocrat
The world has tilted to the right, and populist leaders abound. Why is this so? And how did they manage this tilt?
The Playbook: How To Rise And Fall As An Autocrat
Every good dictator and autocrat has to start somewhere and progress to their almost inevitable fall from grace. The playbook, now well known, still works. So where do they start?
Let us have a look.
Populist leaders often share several characteristics that explain both their rapid rise and their steep fall.
1. They tap into public anger and distrust.
They target an “elite” or an establishment that everyday people view with suspicion. This strategy unites supporters under a simple message that pits “the people” against those at the top.
2. They rely on personal charisma to gain momentum.
They present themselves as heroic figures who challenge the status quo. Supporters invest emotionally in their personality, which magnifies both acclaim and backlash.
3. They make sweeping promises that rarely include nuance.
They pitch bold ideas that rally many disillusioned voters. When reality fails to match the hype, followers sour quickly, and the leader’s narrative unravels.
4. They undermine or sidestep institutions that safeguard accountability.
They disparage courts, media outlets, and other balance-of-power checks. This tactic keeps them in control, but it leaves them vulnerable if those institutions regain strength.
5. They craft a sense of crisis to galvanise supporters.
They cultivate urgency and fear to justify sudden policy shifts and centralised power. If the crisis fades or evolves, people lose patience with one-dimensional leadership.
These leaders propel their supporters by amplifying outrage and giving clear, if simplistic, answers. When their image cracks, the same force that boosted their popularity hastens a dramatic decline.
Complimentary, and with overlap, there are four additional elements our autocrat needs to focus on:
Controlling the Media
Shaping the Narrative
Undermining Trust in Institutions
Identifying a Common Enemy
Both Donald Trump and Elon Musk have employed similar approaches:
1. Controlling the Media: Donald Trump has a history of attacking the press, labelling it as “fake news” and the “enemy of the people,” which undermines public trust in traditional media sources.
2. Shaping the Narrative: Elon Musk, through his ownership of X (formerly Twitter), has significant influence over public discourse, allowing him to promote specific narratives and suppress dissenting opinions.
3. Undermining Trust in Institutions: Both figures have expressed disdain for established institutions. Trump has attacked the judiciary and electoral processes, while Musk has criticised regulatory bodies and traditional media outlets, fostering public scepticism.
4. Identifying a Common Enemy: Trump has frequently targeted immigrants and political opponents as threats to national security, rallying his base against these groups. Similarly, Musk has engaged in public feuds, positioning certain individuals or entities as adversaries, which galvanises his supporters.
These parallels raise concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and the potential shift towards authoritarian practices in contemporary politics.
Let us explore a few leaders who have successfully employed these tactics:
Joseph Stalin (Soviet Union):
1. Controlling the Media: Established state control over all media outlets, ensuring dissemination of propaganda that glorified his regime and suppressed dissenting viewpoints.
2. Shaping the Narrative: Promoted a cult of personality, portraying himself as the ‘Father of Nations’ and the embodiment of Communist ideals.
3. Undermining Trust in Institutions: Conducted purges within the Communist Party, the military, and various state institutions to eliminate real or perceived opponents, consolidating his absolute authority.
4. Identifying a Common Enemy: Vilified ‘kulaks’ (wealthier peasants), labelling them as class enemies to justify forced collectivisation and harsh repression.
Adolf Hitler (Nazi Germany):
1. Controlling the Media: Implemented strict censorship and utilised state-controlled media to propagate Nazi ideology and suppress opposition.
2. Shaping the Narrative: Cultivated a Führer cult, presenting himself as Germany’s saviour destined to lead the nation to greatness.
3. Undermining Trust in Institutions: Dismantled democratic institutions of the Weimar Republic, replacing them with totalitarian structures loyal to the Nazi Party.
4. Identifying a Common Enemy: Targeted Jews, communists, and other minorities as scapegoats, blaming them for Germany’s problems and justifying their persecution.
Vladimir Putin (Russia):
1. Controlling the Media: Established state control over major media outlets, limiting independent journalism.
2. Shaping the Narrative: Promoted nationalism and restored Soviet-era symbols to bolster his regime’s legitimacy.
3. Undermining Trust in Institutions: Suppressed political opposition and manipulated electoral processes to maintain power.
4. Identifying a Common Enemy: Framed Western countries and NATO as adversaries threatening Russian sovereignty.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey):
1. Controlling the Media: Closed numerous media outlets and imprisoned journalists critical of his administration.
2. Shaping the Narrative: Leveraged state media to disseminate pro-government propaganda and religious conservatism.
3. Undermining Trust in Institutions: Purged judiciary and military ranks following the 2016 coup attempt, consolidating executive power.
4. Identifying a Common Enemy: Portrayed Kurdish groups and political dissenters as existential threats to national unity.
Xi Jinping (China):
1. Controlling the Media: Enforced strict censorship and expanded state media to control information dissemination.
2. Shaping the Narrative: Promoted the ‘Chinese Dream’ to foster nationalism and allegiance to the Communist Party.
3. Undermining Trust in Institutions: Implemented anti-corruption campaigns targeting political rivals, consolidating personal authority.
4. Identifying a Common Enemy: Depicted Western influences and pro-democracy activists as threats to social stability.
Viktor Orbán (Hungary):
1. Controlling the Media: Centralised media ownership under pro-government entities, diminishing press freedom.
2. Shaping the Narrative: Advanced an ‘illiberal democracy’ model, emphasising national sovereignty and cultural identity.
3. Undermining Trust in Institutions: Reformed the judiciary and electoral systems to favour his party’s dominance.
4. Identifying a Common Enemy: Vilified migrants and the European Union as threats to Hungarian values and independence.
Donald Trump (United States):
1. Controlling the Media: Frequently labelled mainstream media as ‘fake news’ and ‘the enemy of the people,’ undermining public trust.
2. Shaping the Narrative: Utilised social media platforms, notably Twitter, to directly communicate and propagate his viewpoints.
3. Undermining Trust in Institutions: Criticised judicial decisions and questioned the integrity of electoral processes.
4. Identifying a Common Enemy: Targeted immigrants and political opponents, portraying them as threats to national security.
These leaders’ actions exemplify how authoritarian figures implement strategies to maintain and strengthen their hold on power.
So why do populations fall for this playbook?
1. Fear and Uncertainty: Periods of crisis or instability can lead individuals to seek strong leadership that promises security and order, making them more receptive to authoritarian figures.
2. Desire for Social Cohesion: A longing for unity and belonging can drive support for leaders who emphasise nationalistic or collective identities, even at the expense of individual freedoms.
3. Cognitive Simplification: Authoritarian leaders often offer clear-cut solutions to complex problems, appealing to individuals’ preference for simplicity and certainty in understanding their world.
4. Conformity and Obedience: Societal norms that value obedience to authority can predispose individuals to accept authoritarian governance without critical scrutiny.
5. Perceived Threats to Identity: When individuals feel that their cultural or personal identities are under threat, they may gravitate towards leaders who promise to defend their way of life against perceived outsiders or changes.
6. System Justification: Some individuals have a psychological tendency to defend and justify the status quo, even if it is authoritarian, as a means of reducing uncertainty and maintaining a sense of order.
These factors create a fertile ground for authoritarian leaders to gain and maintain power by exploiting human psychological tendencies and societal dynamics.
How does it start to unravel for our autocrats?
1. They build their reputations on outrage and discontent, which keep audiences motivated until real results fail to appear. At that moment, the public shifts from fanatic support to sudden disappointment.
2. They trumpet personal loyalty instead of balanced governance, which erodes institutions designed to question power. When scandals erupt, or corruption accusations mount, they can lose protection and face the full force of the law.
3. They rely on a simple narrative that pits them against a perceived “elite.” As reality grows more complex, supporters become frustrated by the limitations of one-dimensional solutions.
4. They promise quick fixes that please voters in the short term but weaken resilience when crises demand nuance. Financial mismanagement, trade disputes, and foreign relations can collapse under empty slogans.
Populist leaders build entire movements that rest on their personal brand.
Once belief in that brand erodes, the fall can be swift and ruthless. They embrace the spectacle in their rise, so they rarely exit quietly.
Keep this short playbook at hand to analyse the current world leaders, their rise, and their fall.