| Wikipedia | Britannica | Personalist Strongmen | Rise of Personalist Rule |
Personalist Rule - Wikipedia
Introduction to Dictatorship
A dictatorship is a form of government which is characterized by a leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations. Politics in a dictatorship are controlled by a dictator, and they are facilitated through an inner circle of elites that includes advisers, generals, and other high-ranking officials. The dictator maintains control by influencing and appeasing the inner circle and repressing any opposition, which may include rival political parties, armed resistance, or disloyal members of the dictator's inner circle. Dictatorships can be formed by a military coup that overthrows the previous government through force or they can be formed by a self-coup in which elected leaders make their rule permanent. Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian and they can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies...
Personalist Dictatorships
Personalist dictatorships are regimes in which all of the power lies in the hands of a single individual. They differ from other forms of dictatorships in that the dictator has greater access to key political positions and the government's treasury, and they are more commonly subject to the discretion of the dictator. Personalist dictators may be members of the military or leaders of a political party, but neither the military nor the party exercises power independently from the dictator. In personalist dictatorships, the elite corps are usually made up of close friends or family members of the dictator, who typically handpicks these individuals to serve their posts. These dictatorships often emerge either from loosely organized seizures of power, giving the leader opportunity to consolidate power, or from democratically elected leaders in countries with weak institutions, giving the leader opportunity to change the constitution. Personalist dictatorships are more common in Sub-Saharan Africa due to less established institutions in the region.
Personalist dictators typically favor loyalty over competence in their governments and have a general distrust of intelligentsia. Elites in personalist dictatorships often do not have a professional political career and are unqualified for positions they are given. A personalist dictator will manage these appointees by segmenting the government so that they cannot collaborate. The result is that such regimes have no internal checks and balances, and are thus unrestrained when exerting repression on their people, making radical shifts in foreign policy, or starting wars with other countries. Due to the lack of accountability and the smaller group of elites, personalist dictatorships are more prone to corruption than other forms of dictatorship, and they are more repressive than other forms of dictatorship. Personalist dictatorships often collapse with the death of the dictator. They are more likely to end in violence and less likely to democratize than other forms of dictatorship.
Personalist dictatorships fit the exact classic stereotype of authoritarian rule.[43] Within a personalist regime an issue called "The dictator's dilemma" arises. This idea references the heavy reliance on repression of the public in order to stay in power, which creates incentives for all constituents to falsify their preferences, which does not allow for the dictator to know the genuine popular beliefs or his realistic measure of societal support. As a result of authoritarian politics, a series of major issues may ensue. Preference falsification, Internal politics, data scarcity, and restriction of media are just a few examples of the dangers of a personalistic authoritarian regime. Although, when it comes to polling and elections a dictator could use his power to override private preferences. Many personalist regimes will install open ballots to protect their regimes and implement heavy security measures and censorship for those whose personal preferences do not align with the values of the leader.
The shift in the power relation between the dictator and their inner circle has severe consequences for the behavior of such regimes as a whole. Personalist regimes diverge from other regimes when it comes to their longevity, methods of breakdown, levels of corruption, and proneness to conflicts. On average, they last twice as long as military dictatorships, but not as long as one-party dictatorships. Personalist dictatorships also experience growth differently, as they often lack the institutions or qualified leadership to sustain an economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship#Personalist
Personalistic Dictatorships - Britannica
Despite these notable cases in history, there are very few contemporary instances of fully totalitarian or fascist rule. Many authoritarian regimes in the 20th century did not possess the ability to completely control their societies, and interesting regional patterns emerged. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, there has been only one totalitarian dictatorship (in Eritrea) to date. Nevertheless, most African regimes have been highly personalistic, such as those of Mobutu Sese Seko (Joseph Mobutu) in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and Idi Amin of Uganda. Personalistic dictatorships are characterized by leaders who exercise nearly absolute power. The other institutions of the state are severely weakened and exist more or less in name only. The judiciary takes direct orders from the dictator, and the legislature, which is dominated by the leader’s party, acts as a rubber stamp. In many cases the dictator does not even pretend to follow constitutional procedures and rules by decree. The military in such regimes is “coup-proofed,” or deliberately weakened, so that it poses no threat to the leader’s power. All of the other organs of the state are dependent on the dictator and may even report to the dictator directly.
Because there are no checks on the dictator’s power, these types of regimes are plagued by high levels of corruption and kleptocracy. In some cases, the dictator has stolen billions from the state—as Mobutu was notoriously noted for doing. These types of regimes have tended to arise in countries that are very poor and have weak governmental institutions that are easy to exploit and further debilitate.
An exception to this generalization is the personalistic dictatorship of Vladmir Putin of Russia. Because Russia is awash in valuable energy and industrial resources such as oil and natural gas and because it maintains a large military, Putin occupies a prominent position on the world stage. Supported by a group of security and military leaders known as the siloviki, Putin makes decisions with little consultation from experts and faces little if any opposition from economic and political elites. As have other personalistic dictators who lack a solid group of advisers, Putin has engaged in high-risk behaviour, notably including Russia’s military invasions of Ukraine beginning in 2014 and 2022.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism#ref356524
Personalist Strongmen: Challenges and Trends
A Bad Year for Strongmen
Looking back, 2022 was a bad year for strongmen. Take Russia, where Vladimir Putin’s poor judgement led to a war that has not only devasted Ukraine, but left Russia seriously weakened and Putin’s own hold on power more tenuous. In China, as well, widespread protests over the country’s heavy-handed COVID restrictions tarnished the increasingly personalist Xi Jinping’s image, culminating in the most overt signs of dissent that observers have seen there in years.
Even outside of autocracies, the world’s strongmen faced setbacks last year. In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro lost re-election in October 2022, prompting calls among his supporters for the military to intervene and overturn the result. Likewise, in the United States, the Republican Party’s poor performance in mid-term elections in November 2022 dealt a major blow to Donald Trump’s image and prospects for returning to power. The bad news for strongmen trickled over into 2023 too, with the Czech Republic’s former highly personalist Prime Minister Andrej Babis losing in the country’s presidential election in January.
The headwinds facing the world’s strongmen is clearly a good news story for global peace and democracy. A large body of evidence suggests that personalist rule — whether in autocratic or democratic environments — brings with it a number of harmful outcomes.
Personalist Dictators
Looking at autocracies, for example, personalist dictatorships (or those regimes where power is concentrated in the hands of an individual rather than a political party, royal family, or military junta) produce the worst policy outcomes of any type of political system. Research shows that compared to other forms of dictatorship, personalist dictatorships tend to pursue the riskiest and most aggressive foreign policies, as recent experience with Putin’s belligerence has illustrated. Personalist dictatorships are also the most likely of all dictatorships to invest in nuclear weapons and the least likely to engage in international cooperation. Greater personalism in dictatorships even increases the chance of repression, as witnessed under Xi in recent years as he has solidified his hold on power. Importantly, personalist authoritarianism is harmful to global democracy, as these regimes are the least likely form of dictatorship to democratize upon their collapse.
Personalist Rule in Democracies
While there is less literature looking at the consequences of personalist rule for democracies, new researchwe have conducted with Joseph Wright on elected strongmen suggests that it is similarly harmful in these settings too. Specifically, the data reveal that where personalist leaders (or those leaders who wield disproportionate power relative to the parties that back them) are elected to power, we see the quality of democracy decline, regardless of whether it is measured incrementally, sharply, or by total democratic collapse. Compared to leaders supported by more robust and less top-heavy party organizations, personalist leaders are more likely to be successful in their efforts to erode horizontal constraints on their power (i.e., the state’s legislative, judicial, and bureaucratic institutions).
But the effects of personalist rulers don’t end there. Our research also shows that these leaders increase polarization in the societies they govern, often via their attacks on state institutions. Their actions even degrade their supporters’ views of acceptable democratic behavior, helping to explain the capitol riots that occurred in recent years in both the United States and Brazil among supporters of Trump and Bolsonaro, respectively.
Indications that personalist leaders are facing challenges is therefore welcome news. It runs counter to the trend observed in the last two decades, with personalism on the rise in both autocratic and democratic contexts.
The Rise of Personalism
In autocracies, most dictatorships since the end of World War II were led by strong political parties, such as the Institutional Revolution Party (PRI) in Mexico, or military juntas, as in much of Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s. Since the end of the Cold War, however, authoritarian politics has evolved, such that personalist rule has become the predominant form of authoritarianism. Not only are we seeing personalist dictatorships grow more common, with new regimes coming to power in places such as Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan and South Sudan under Salva Kiir, but we are also seeing formerly collegial dictatorships grow more personalist, as in China under Xi.
In democracies, as well, we have witnessed an upsurge in personalism. Our data show that leaders in democracies are increasingly being elected to power backed by weak and shallow parties, often that they themselves created. This trend has been particularly notable in the last decade. It has not been confined to one or two regions of the world either, but has been a global phenomenon, as illustrated by the assumption to power of leaders such as Macky Sall in Senegal and Nayib Bukele in El Salvador. Importantly, when such personalist democracies do give way to dictatorship, the regime that arises is nearly always personalist in nature too.
The Decline of Personalist Rule?
It is too soon to assess whether the distress — and in some instances downfall — a number of personalists experienced in 2022 will be a bellwether of political dynamics in the years to come. After all, strongman leaders such as Aleksandar Vucic of Serbia and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua appear more powerful than ever. And, while they may face challenges, even Putin and Xi remain firmly in control for the foreseeable future.
Likewise, many of the factors driving the rise of personalism in democracies persist. For example, today’s media landscape continues to prioritize the individual over the party, short-circuiting the need for party building to win office. Political parties are increasingly being built around individuals, and, lacking a robust policy platform, represent little more than the politicians who found them, fueling personalism in democracies. Moreover, the well-documented wave of partisan dealignment that has swept across many parts of the globe remains relevant. As voters express dissatisfaction and detachment from long-standing political parties, it has created openings for new leaders and their personalist parties to fill.
That said, the fact that 2022 was a challenging year for personalists is certainly welcome news. If it indeed marks a turn in the tide of personalism, the world will be in a better place for it.
https://democracyparadox.com/2023/02/06/personalist-strongmen-challenges-and-trends/
The Rise of Personalist Rule
Beyond the most imminent foreign policy challenges facing the new administration looms a macro-trend that deserves attention: the rise of personalist “strongmen” authoritarian governments.
Classic examples of personalist regimes include Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin, and the Kim dynasty in North Korea. Yet less overtly repressive authoritarian regimes are progressing from consolidating power within their borders to projecting power beyond them. In Russia, for example, the centralization of internal power under Putin has taken place alongside adventurist foreign policies and military strategies in Ukraine, the near abroad, and in the Middle East.
Understanding the political dynamics within authoritarian systems such as Russia’s might help us better predict what they will do on the world stage.
A New Era of Authoritarianism
Over the last decade, authoritarians have pushed back against the world’s prevailing democratic order. For the 11th year in a row, Freedom House has announced an overall drop in freedom worldwide. Most countries today (55 percent) are considered not free or partly free according to the civil liberties and political rights citizens enjoy. At the same time, highly personalized regimes are taking control of autocratic and even democratic political systems.
Compared to the Cold War era when powerful Communist and socialist parties presided over most dictatorships, today around 40 percent of autocratic governments are ruled by strongmen. Across regions, consolidated power is settling into the hands of one man or a small group of illiberal individuals, ranging from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte and leaders in Ecuador, Venezuela, Hungary, and Poland.
Classifying this global trend is complicated by the fact that authoritarian governments in the 21st century do not look like Stalinist Russia or Fascist Germany. In the absence of mobilizing ideologies, modern autocratic leaders abuse and corrupt other sources of power, including those that we recognize in democratic systems such as political competition, the rule of law, public debate, and access to open information.
Moreover, autocrats have taken advantage of globalized communications and advanced technologies to maintain control over their populations. Governments have more elusive and powerful tools of monitoring, censorship, and disinformation available at their fingertips, allowing political leaders to move their instruments of persuasion from the pulpit to the digital space. Leaders in nations as varied as Russia, Turkey, the Philippines, and Venezuela have tapped into popular national narratives that highlight how their countries have been exploited by the United States and the West. These leaders then project their ability to stand up to such exploitation, which resonates with their populations.
The Foreign Policy Implications of Domestic Power Structures
Personalist rule is just one distinct mold of autocracy. Other types of authoritarian systems include single-party regimes (where a strong party organization exercises some power over the leader) and military autocracies (in which one or several high-ranking military officers maintain centralized control). In comparison, personalist regimes concentrate power in the hands of one individual or a small group not accountable to the military or an institutionalized party. Personalist leaders have limited constraints on their decisionmaking abilities and are held less accountable for policies, including those with negative outcomes. They are able to appoint friends, relatives, and cronies to important offices. These handpicked insiders have strong incentives to remain loyal to and uncritical of the leader.
The implications of authoritarian rule do not stop at the water’s edge. Recent political science studies indicate the significance of political dynamics within authoritarian regimes for foreign policy. Among single-party dominated and military-led regimes, research shows that personalist authoritarians are the most likely to initiate conflicts abroad and pursue risky foreign policies. Not only are personalist authoritarians more aggressive abroad, they are also often unpredictable actors. With limited constraints on their power, personalist leaders are capable of carrying out volatile policies with little notice.
There are four primary reasons that personalist systems can lead to more aggressive foreign policies. First, the inherent characteristics of the kinds of individuals who become personalist rulers—ambitious, cut-throat and divisive—drive them to pursue more adventurist international goals than leaders of other kinds of regimes. Second, personalist leaders perceive lower costs of fighting than leaders of democracies or more constrained autocratic systems because they have fewer normative aversions to force, do not internalize the costs of fighting, and view force as more effective than other tools of statecraft. Third, personalist leaders do not fear defeat to the extent that other leaders do because of the lack of strong institutions able to punish the leader for his mistakes. Fourth, subordinates to personalist leaders are typically unwilling to challenge a leader’s personal biases, leading to profound “groupthink” and overestimation of the likelihood of victory.
Learning from Moscow
Russia under Putin illustrates the potential link between personalist authoritarianism and aggressive and risky foreign policies. In Russia’s political system, the Federal Assembly (Russia’s parliament) has become a rubber stamp on Putin’s policy proposals. Furthermore, Putin does not rely on Russia’s main political party, United Russia, as his primary power base. This means that he can rise above the political fray and insulate his personal popularity from the public’s lack of trust in the government and dismay over the direction of the country. Yet Putin is not entirely above the system; there is a governing apparatus that anchors him, even if it cannot be considered a formal collective or political party.
The narrowing of decisionmaking circles around Putin to a small group of loyalists and like-minded advisors has eliminated competing voices within his regime and has created a groupthink dynamic in the Kremlin’s decisionmaking. Putin is probably the least-constrained leader in the Kremlin since Stalin; there is no Politburo that could fire him, as it did Nikita Khrushchev in 1964. As a result, it has proven immensely difficult to predict Putin’s next moves until after they are done deals. Putin’s decision to annex Crimea in 2014 and intervene in Syria in 2015 are two examples of when the Russian leader’s unpredictability left analysts and even government insiders guessing.
While Russian trolls and propaganda machines carry out complex disinformation operations in Europe, and the United States, the Kremlin’s tightening control over the media at home ensures that the public receives only the official narrative of domestic and foreign events. Russia’s information landscape is aptly described by journalist and author Peter Pomerantsev as a space where “nothing is true and everything is possible,” and where it is difficult to differentiate between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. This too has foreign policy implications. Capitalizing on nationalism to mobilize the public on certain international objectives—warlike or not—is far more permissive in such an environment where the inherent definition of fact is constantly challenged by authority figures.
Looking Ahead
If cross-regional illustrations can teach us anything, it is that authoritarians, once in office, can impinge on judicial independence, civil liberties, and checks on overreach from the executive branch. Beyond domestic repercussions, we also know that there are implications for the conduct of foreign policy, particularly on issues of national security, where the executive has more flexibility and leverage over other branches of government. Personalist tendencies also impede critical foreign policy decisionmaking processes, as the impulsivity of individual leaders can go unconstrained by outside opinions, institutions, or channels of dissent.
As the Trump administration develops its nascent worldview and foreign policies, it should not ignore these powerful political dynamics brewing within autocratic states.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/03/23/the-rise-of-personalist-rule/
How Personalist Politics is Changing Democracies
https://www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/how-personalist-politics-is-changing-democracies
Militeristic, One Party, Personalist, Absolute Monarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship#Types_of_dictatorships
Putin’s War and Personalist Authoritarianism
https://www.niskanencenter.org/putins-war-and-personalist-authoritarianism/
