Why do people keep voting for authoritarian leaders?
I'm just trying to understand. Erdogan in Turkey, Putin in Russia, Orban in Hungary etc... Why do these leaders still get so much support after all they've done?
Aren't these people seeing a massive drop in their quality of life?
Demagoguery, something that Socrates critiqued as a product of democratic systems.
Socrates imagined an election between a doctor and a candy store owner. The doctor would tell the populace what they didn’t want to hear.
As Socrates described it, the candy store owner would say of the physician that he works many evils on you. He hurts you, gives you bitter potions, tells you not to eat and drink whatever you like. What fun is that? The candy store owner, however, would offer sweets and tasty things. He would appeal to what people wanted, not what they needed. He would provide easy and popular answers to all their difficult problems
Or, distilled into a modern cliché: "What is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular." Elections are contests of popularity, not contests of thoughtfulness or morality.
In Spain the government decided that housing is a basic human right. Sounds awesome, right? But the population voted for its right-wing opposition anyway because immigrant bad.
Problem is that people disagree on who's the candy store owner. "Let's make housing a human right" may look like candy if you don't fully believe in their actual plans to make housing available at reasonable prices.
More precisely, they're popularity contests where the prize is a powerful position of authority. Of course power-hungry authoritarians are going to compete in that contest.
Those leaders offer simple answers to complex social problems and claim to restore their country to the halcyon days of yore. The days when there were no immigrants, liberals, degeneracy or whatever "came later to ruin the country."
Also the voters may believe that voting against their interests somehow benefits them.
I think it comes down to not understanding who they are and what does, infact, benefit them. This state is induced by design. These are professional human traffickers, and they deal in trading suffering for power.
The covid lock down in North Korea for example. Why? My understanding is that it is just to hold the seat of power, whatever that means to the ruling people. Letting in food or people or medicine would introduce am outside factor that offers something the current ruling class can not offer. So shut it down.
It's greed...average, kind, simple people are screwed over all in the name of ego or what have you.
I'm not really sure there is an answer at all anymore. People suffer, because we are conscious beings. That is a pretty unnatural state to be in, when you think about it.
All we can really do is alleviate the suffering we encounter in our everyday lives at the end of the day, and try to be better people, and maybe one day far from now, we will all have this understanding of ourselves
Since most of the democracies determine the result based on first past the post (FPTP) or closely related voting system, the candidates only need to get 50% of the voting population to agree with them. They focus on populist policies that resonate with at least 50.1% of the population even if those policies will be detrimental to the remaining 49.9%.
The opposition is not seen as strong enough to lead the country. This was the case in recent Turkish elections and has been the case in the last 3 Indian elections. Erdogan and Modi keep winning because people who don’t want to vote for them are not convinced by the other candidates’ abilities to lead the country. So many of the opposing people don’t vote at all or have their votes fragmented across multiple candidates in FPTP systems. That was and also remains the concern with Biden in the US.
Once these leaders are in power, they actively suppress the voice of the minorities, by controlling the media and law enforcement, or by making it harder for minorities to vote and express themselves. This reduces the total voting population in favor of these leaders which again benefits them get past the 50% votes. Ultimately, we observe the vicious cycle of more power consolidation over time and more authoritarianism.
Point 1: Yes, FPTP is totally shit in most if not all situations. Point 2: Yes, it is like "I better vote for someone who wants to fuck me, but is good at it, than for someone who wants to do good, but might not be as good in it."
They have control over the media so the only side of the story people hear is that they are wonderful leaders and that the only people who oppose them are low class idiots, possibly criminals.
Also, they have control over the elections as well so it doesn't really matter how people vote.
Kind of like what Republicans are trying to do in the US.
The idea of someone that strong to make a change persuade people to vote them or they just already spreading fear to the people but not just that, this one is a bit unique, I think. Well, in El Salvador they got Bukele which basically a dictator, you can search it. In his term, democracy is decreasing but the homicide feel down drastically on country that so dangerous before, now they just could walk on the street without afraid getting shot and die.
People are seeing a massive drop in their quality of life before they vote for an authoritarian.
That's why they vote for strongmen - the neoliberals that were in charge before fucked everything up, and without any understanding of why that happened they just react by electing the opposition.
Sure, once these types get in to power they're hard to dislodge.
Quality of life declines, people vote for a strongman. Then, once he's in, he just has to make sure he isn't the one that gets blamed for continuing declining quality of life. They usually control the media and suppress political opponents, and it doesn't help that the alternative being offered is just a return to the previous neoliberal politics that oversaw the start of the decline in the first place.
Eventually people get fed up and turn to more radical solutions, but they have to lose faith in voting first.
Because compromise is messy and progress is incremental and sometimes hearing someone yell words that sound true will make you feel like you’ve found the answer to all the political bullshit.
In Hungary, one big reason is that the government has all the media coverage, and they basically created a false narrative that if Orbán loses, then a) the previous government will come back and no matter how bad things are right now, it will be WORSE, b) migrants will come and wreak havock, c) our sons will have to go to war (in the last election, the opposition lost a lot of votes because there was a billboard campaign stating that the new PM candidate would send soldiers to Ukraine), d) there will be some kind of woke dictatorship.
People also think that the bad quality of life is mostly the fault of the EU and the previous government (which was in power over a decade ago...), and that it's okay that Orbán and his party steals from them because at least they're "on their side".
The government also provides some help to parents, which people find valuable, so they keep voting for FIDESZ.
Under crisis or perceived pressure, there is obvious distrust in the current system. And the desire for a strong leader comes out of a hope of the decisiveness and concentrated power will allow them to "cut through the red tape" and dislodge entrenched stakeholders preventing change. Additionally, if the political and economic system is really complex and have difficult problems that are very systemic and don't have clear and immediate causes, this simplifying of the politics to all power being concentrated in an individual becomes desirable (this is Joseph Tainter's idea that social systems that have become too dysfunctional will create "Caesarism", his name for desiring a strong man leader).
The other major consideration is that a popular leader that has ties to multiple groups can paper over or avoid conflict between multiple stakeholders or polarized factions in a political system. This is why so much veneration and executive power was given to Washington in the US post-revolution, because that got around a lot of arguments and factional issues between North and South and other colony's conflicting interests. Both Napolean Bonaparte and Loius Napoleon had this as their main opening for power in the post-Revolution chaos and conflicts in the Second Republic, respectively.
I guess a lot of it must be the belief that things could be better, that a country, organisation, etc is actually capable of so much more, but is holding back, and it just needs someone with the will to actually use it.
It reminds me a bit of Fargo, season 3 I think? Two of the main characters are getting constantly outplayed, but are still generally keeping to the confines, rules and routines of their regular lives. One of them, who is trying to deal with it, asks to be 'unleashed', to try and deal with the problem directly, no restrictions, the other eventually gives him permission. The guy sets out full of resolve and confidence, but ultimately falls completely flat, because really, pretty much nothing was being 'held back', and this direct approach also cost them their status. I think of it a lot looking at Russia at the moment, they could always do X if they really wanted to, but they don't, but they could. Now they've crossed that line, and it has cost them dearly, but they had less in reserve than they seemed to think, now they will hint at more mobilisation, industrial capacity, etc to seem like they're holding back.
When things are bad in some way, very few people are willing to accept that this is likely the best they can expect. The belief that they could do something if they wanted, is quite the cope, and if they actually do want to do the thing, then they will look to 'strong' leaders who claim to have the will to do just that. Then they usually flop.
Sometimes, though, this is completely true, as with your example, Napoleon was someone capable of unlocking the potential of France that had been held back initially by conservative ideas, then by factionalism and instability. But that was an example of extreme internal turmoil, that he was able to fix, while also being a legitimate genius, able to implement ideas decades ahead of his time, with an almost singular focus and determination. I don't like Napoleon, but I have a great deal of respect for him, especially the earlier part of his career.
People always look for simple answers. Simple things that 'need to be done' to get the right outcome. It may be nationalising companies, eating the rich, building the wall, destroying Carthage or taking the Sudetenland. The question is; 1. will these actions achieve the outcomes they seek, and b) what will it cost? Because it's easy to look at politicians as being malicious, scheming and evil, but really, if there's such an easy fix to massively improve everyones' lives, even if they don't entirely agree on an ideological level, it will secure votes for them for decades, so it will usually be done regardless. The only reason it wouldn't is when they are worried that the cost will outweigh the benefit.
I guess a lot of it must be the belief that things could be better, that a country, organisation, etc is actually capable of so much more, but is holding back, and it just needs someone with the will to actually use it.
It reminds me a bit of Fargo, season 3 I think? Two of the main characters are getting constantly outplayed, but are still generally keeping to the confines, rules and routines of their regular lives. One of them, who is trying to deal with it, asks to be 'unleashed', to try and deal with the problem directly, no restrictions, the other eventually gives him permission. The guy sets out full of resolve and confidence, but ultimately falls completely flat, because really, pretty much nothing was being 'held back', and this direct approach also cost them their status. I think of it a lot looking at Russia at the moment, they could always do X if they really wanted to, but they don't, but they could. Now they've crossed that line, and it has cost them dearly, but they had less in reserve than they seemed to think, now they will hint at more mobilisation, industrial capacity, etc to seem like they're holding back.
When things are bad in some way, very few people are willing to accept that this is likely the best they can expect. The belief that they could do something if they wanted, is quite the cope, and if they actually do want to do the thing, then they will look to 'strong' leaders who claim to have the will to do just that. Then they usually flop.
Sometimes, though, this is completely true, as with your example, Napoleon was someone capable of unlocking the potential of France that had been held back initially by conservative ideas, then by factionalism and instability. But that was an example of extreme internal turmoil, that he was able to fix, while also being a legitimate genius, able to implement ideas decades ahead of his time, with an almost singular focus and determination. I don't like Napoleon, but I have a great deal of respect for him, especially the earlier part of his career.
People always look for simple answers. Simple things that 'need to be done' to get the right outcome. It may be nationalising companies, eating the rich, building the wall, destroying Carthage or taking the Sudetenland. The question is; 1. will these actions achieve the outcomes they seek, and b) what will it cost? Because it's easy to look at politicians as being malicious, scheming and evil, but really, if there's such an easy fix to massively improve everyones' lives, even if they don't entirely agree on an ideological level, it will secure votes for them for decades, so it will usually be done regardless. The only reason it wouldn't is when they are worried that the cost will outweigh the benefit.
Once a competent authoritarian leader takes root, it becomes very hard to remove him: the necessary mechanisms, formal or informal, tend to be sabotaged - not at once, but more and more over the years. It also helps when some of opposition have their lives broken, when uncertainty about one's own life is high, the value of human life low, when loyalty is placed above both competence and the law, and the law above competence, when the reputation of any possible contenders is questionable or made questionable, when people are used to the thought of futility of resistance (with fresh examples produced all the time) and being alone before the oppression, when somewhat educated people are made to think their views are in minority (independently of whether it's the case) and some of less educated people have some of their misery alleviated (and are occasionally given some power they did not deserve) in return for voicing the pro-government position (even if a good measure of said misery is a consequence of the government's actions).
Step 1. Take control over all types of media Step 2. Eliminate opposition Step3. ???? Step 4. Profites !
People keep voting for them because they foster and environnement where there is no one else to vote for.
Last election in Turkey may have looked like a close call for Erdogan. But during the campaign he got over 85% of media coverage, while the other candidates have to share the crumbs (I am pulling those numbers out of my ass).
People like authoritarians. Especially one they agree with, which many do.
Even in the US we have children's programming replete with kings and queens ruling over people. How many people watch things like Black Panther and think "this would be so much better with a Congress debating what direction to take"? I mean other than me...
Dictators get things done compared to committees and legislatures. Nobody likes compromise.
There is a whole system of media devoted to getting normal folks to vote against their own interests. In the regimes you list (and I'd argue also in western so called liberal democracies too but to a lesser extent) the capitalist class and political class are so intertwined due to influence and corruption, that whatever the needs and whims of the leading politicians, the media machine will distract and manipulate. The same tactics that they use are the ones which have worked since the start of mass media, they know how human psychology works.
Appealing to emotional arguments, external threats, racism, nationalism. Remember these are political tools, unfortunately very effective ones, as we saw in fascism in the 1900s. A curious consequence is that often, the worse things get for the normal people, the easier it is for these malicious actors to spin and manipulate and blame it on an external force or political enemy which deflects blame or allows for more extreme political ideology to rise in a society. So you get an accelerated political extremism.
Add comment