 |
| Chairman Mao poster, People's Republic of China, 1968 in the University of Oregon |
II. Ideology
It is probably in initial motivation that we see the biggest difference in national and individual tyrants.
The motivation of national tyrants often comes from ideology. This lends conviction and focus - or rather the excuse that justifies the purging of opponents that inevitably attends the tyrants alternative view of society. Usually ideology gives way to, morphs into an obsession with extreme control, frequently accompanied by paranoia.
To take some examples, Stalin was initially driven by a Marxist - Leninist ideology but systematically eliminated potential rivals. He created the cult of personality common in tyrants that led to a rule of terror and absolutism. Similarly, Hitler started with nationalist and racist ideologies but dismantled democratic institutions to establish totalitarian control.
Mao and Pol Pot's ideology was communist but became just another form of authoritarian control on the one hand and genocide on the other. Castro’s communist ideals were similarly maintained through authoritarian means - control of the press, surveillance and repression. There are endless left wing leaders who started out with an ideology that turned autocratic. Latin America seems to have them on repeat. In Europe, Alexander Lukashenko’s rule in Belarus has been called "Europe's last dictatorship" and combines elements of Soviet-era policies with strong nationalist rhetoric.
The same happens on the right: Mussolini was a fascist, Putin seems to be motivated by Russian exceptionalism. While Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan were “democratically” elected there are questions about how democratically they govern and the integrity of their electoral systems. Erdoğan seems to be pursuing a broadly nationalist ideology based on traditional Islamic values in a nominally secular state. Orbán doesn’t have an ideology per se, more a set of traditionally right wing ideas. The difference between him and what have typically been more dangerous dictators is that the latter tend to have one particular burning issue like “agrarian reform”, “the end of private ownership”, “racial purity”, “a pan-Arab state”, “Sharia law”.
The Arab world has its own versions of dictatorships: Gaddafi’s ideology was Arab nationalism and socialist. Saddam Hussein was a Ba'athist (single Arab state). Both became autocratic. In Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman runs a repressive absolute monarchy based on Sharia principles around a cult of personality albeit not one as outlandish as some.
The non-Arab dictatorships in the Middle East, Iran and the Taliban are Islamic theocracies. The latter combines an extreme form of Deobandi Islam with Pashtun nationalism.
The many military dictatorships tend to seek power for its own sake, though sometimes this combines with establishing “order” or economic benefits for those at the top.
In Africa, Leopold II of Belgium (Congo Free State)’s tyranny (1865-1909) was motivated primarily by personal enrichment through exploitation of the Congo. In the same region ) (Zaire/Democratic Republic of Congo), Mobutu Sese Seko’s reign (1965-97) was motivated by personal enrichment and power. Idi Amin in Uganda (1971-79) was motivated by personal power and paranoia. Robert Mugabe’s hold on power in Zimbabwe (1980-2017) was dominated by maintaining personal power although it had had ideological origins.
Tyrannies around personal power tend to be found more in Africa - notably Bokassa in the Central African Republic; Macías Nguema and Nguema Mbasogo in Equatorial Guinea, Yahya Jammeh in The Gambia, Sani Abacha in Nigeria. Ferdinand Marcos was an example form the the Philippines and the aforementioned Jean-Claude Duvalier "Baby Doc" in Haiti.
In most of these regimes, control and repression are as much, if not more, the symbol of the regime than whatever it is the regimes is supposed to safeguard, promote or change. This is as much a good indicator of a totalitarian regime as any other. More people could probably tell you Pinochet was a dictator than whether he was on the left or on the right. It is often pointed out that when it comes to dictatorship, there is little distinction any more between left and right. The cost in human suffering is the same.
The dogmatic micro tyrant
The micro-tyrant does not have an ideology per se. What they have instead is a dogmatic view - about what, doesn’t matter; the point is they will not entertain an alternative. What seemed to be a diverging open circle of different motivations between macro and micro tyrants in fact comes together again because the ideology is just the excuse for control. No tyrant will brook opposition. Their way - no matter how they may frame any so-called “discussion” - is the only way. Example after example appears in 'The Feast of the Goat' of laws that are passed for the benefit of those in power using language that show these either as supposedly necessary incursions on civil liberties or appearing to be for the benefit of citizens .
In both macro and micro cases, motivations are some combination of power/ control, greed, convenience, and self-interest - in all cases, selfish motivations. This will come up in more detail under identifying tyrants
Tyrants, post 9
