When power becomes personal (part 2)
A psychological analysis and survival guide for the populace
In a galaxy far away, the rebel and freedom fighter, Karis Nemik (Andor, part of the Star Wars universe) remarks that “Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle. Oppression is the mask of fear. Remember that.” Everyone must join in for tyranny to succeed because authoritarian institutions require widespread cooperation to succeed.
Another Wild Few Weeks
It’s been another wild few weeks in international politics. It’s difficult to get a handle on what is going on - and inevitably we look to past historical examples to try and interpret the present. Perhaps we shouldn’t.
Maybe there’s something new going on, which I’ll try and explore here.
Contents
A Striking Departure
Modern Autocracy
Psychological Underpinnings
Power of Modern Autocrats
Ritualistic Nature of Power
Paradox of Modern Autocracy
Survival Guide for the Populace
Cultivating Critical Cognition
Strengthening Institutional and Community Resilience
Reclaiming Emotional Autonomy
Building Bridges for Collective Action
Preserving Truth and Accountability
Malicious Compliance
Weapons of the Weak
Cultivating Patience and a Long-Term Perspective
A Striking Departure
Some modern autocrats show a striking departure from the historical rulers who bore the burdens of genuine governance. Stalin was famously a micromanager – across all the details of everything that crossed his desk. Rather than dedicating themselves to the dull but vital work of building institutions and directing complex societal, economic, military and other affairs of state, today’s autocrats are concerned with crafting a personalised spectacle—what is in effect a performance of their personal power, hinging on a complex interplay of public homage and a carefully-crafted but deep parasocial relationship with their followers. These leaders secure their authority through carefully constructed images.
And this is why public defiance can erode their authority in unexpected ways.
Modern Autocracy
Historically, power and responsibility were synonymous. Traditional rulers—emperors, kings, even pragmatic autocrats—managed alliances, built administrative institutions, and balanced competing interests through negotiation and delegation. Their authority was somewhat dispersed across a network of institutions and relationships, a reality that made absolute control difficult to attain - for there are always others who need buying off or balancing in someway. Every autocrat needs pliant mid-level elites to get their work done.
Some modern autocrats reject the laborious tasks of genuine governance. Instead of constructing enduring systems, they hollow out existing institutions and focus on cultivating a personal image of omnipotence and control.
Their reign is less about policy and more about performance; they demand public displays of loyalty and reverence, not mere surface compliance with legal mandates. In essence, they are more interested in the theatre of power than its actual administration. So, they issue edicts (aka ‘executive orders’) renaming international bodies of water or arbitrary trade tariffs against allies or whatever, in lieu of the harder job of creating and crafting legislation and creating durable coalitions.
Psychological Underpinnings
At the heart of this autocratic performance lies a profound psychological need. Modern autocrats often display traits reminiscent of narcissism, characterised by an exaggerated self-image, an acute sensitivity to criticism, where their self-worth depends heavily on the constant external validation of their authority.
When the public participates in their rituals of homage, these leaders experience a reinforcement of their self-conception as infallible figures. However, when their image is challenged by acts of defiance1 or ridicule, the exposure of their vulnerability triggers a deep sense of humiliation and insecurity - it feels like an attack on the leader’s personal identity.
Reliance on an ever-present stream of adulation makes their authority precariously dependent on public perception—something that is their greatest weakness when that perception begins to shift, and the opinion polls start to trend down.
Power of Modern Autocrats
The power of modern autocrats is not imposed solely from above; it is also a product of collective behaviour and voluntary participation. Followers willingly engage in self-abasing rituals reinforcing the autocrat’s image - from public loyalty displays to the propagation of state-sanctioned narratives. These acts, though often performed under a veneer of submission, are in fact a form of voluntary power giving that creates a parasocial relationship between the leader and their followers.
The leader’s authority is maintained through combining overt coercion and threat and a mutual, albeit unbalanced, exchange of symbolic gestures.
When defiance emerges—even in small, isolated acts—it can spread throughout society. This collective behavioural shift undermines the carefully curated spectacle, as public dissent chips away at the illusion of the leader’s invulnerability.
Ritualistic Nature of Power
The ritualistic nature of power has deep historical roots. Across diverse cultures, rituals and ceremonies have long been used to legitimise authority and reinforce social hierarchies. Modern autocrats tap into these age-old practices by staging performances that evoke images of traditional, almost mythic, leadership.
Similar to mob bosses, who often rely on a blend of fear and carefully maintained reputations, today’s autocrats depend on symbolic displays to command respect. However, while mob bosses typically use coercion and tangible acts of power to enforce obedience, modern autocrats lean on the voluntary participation of their citizens. They create spectacles create balancing the imposition of direct control with cultivating an image of omnipresence and infallibility—an image that can be maintained only as long as the public continues to perform the expected rituals of allegiance.
Paradox of Modern Autocracy
This analysis reveals a paradox at the core of modern autocracy. The very mechanisms allowing autocrats to maintain their power—the rituals of homage, the carefully curated public image, and the reliance on voluntary deference—are the sources of their most profound vulnerabilities. Their authority is inherently unstable because it is predicated on an illusion - not on the substantive ability to govern.
When citizens begin to question, mock, or simply refuse to engage in the prescribed performances, the autocrat’s carefully constructed facade starts to crumble. A subtle, decentralised approach to resistance—one prioritising non-compliance and the promotion of alternative narratives over overt confrontation—may be more effective than traditional methods of protest - the persistent, collective shift away from the rituals that sustain his authority.
The downfall of these autocrats lies in the gradual erosion of their public image among those with who they have a strong, positive, parasocial relationship.
Diminishing their power is through everyday acts of defiance: mockery, non-compliance, and spreading alternative visions of leadership.
(Coming soon: ‘theory and practice of leaderless unity: we don’t need a hero to save us’)
Survival Guide for the Populace
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Brain Pizza by Shane O'Mara to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.