A significant number of Americans are drawn to the concept of authoritarian leadership. Why not endorse a ruler who can efficiently accomplish tasks?
Having resided in Eastern Europe during the aftermath of communism, I have firsthand experience of regions in Ukraine subjected to Russian occupation. Over the years, I have delved into accounts of individuals enduring authoritarian [ppp1] ordeals, witnessing both historical and recent mass graves. Additionally, I have close acquaintances who have navigated through oppressive regimes, including political detainees and survivors of brutal interrogations. Regrettably, some of the individuals I held in high regard have fallen victim to assassination.
Hence, I believe there is a pertinent response to this inquiry.
The allure of strongman governance is essentially a fallacy. Central to this notion is the belief that a strongman will serve as “your” protector. However, in a democratic system, elected officials heed the voices of their constituents. We often take this for granted, assuming that a dictator would feel indebted to us. Yet, the act of voting for such a leader essentially reaffirms our insignificance. The crux lies in the fact that the strongman owes the populace nothing. We endure mistreatment and gradually become desensitized to it.
Another deceptive perception is the unity of the nation under a dictator. Nevertheless, an aspiring autocrat will invariably segregate individuals into “us” versus “them” categories, designating certain groups as adversaries. Initially, this division may evoke a sense of validation, especially if one perceives themselves on the favored side. However, fear soon becomes the prevailing sentiment. The dichotomy of “us” and “them” perpetuates ceaselessly once initiated.
There is a yearning for a strongman to enable us to concentrate on American affairs. However, dictatorship exposes our nation to the most malevolent global influences. An American authoritarian leader will gauge his stature against that of fellow dictators, fostering alliances and rivalries with them. This companionship with despots will breed new methodologies for subjugation and exploitation of the domestic populace.
The idealized notion that a strongman will expedite progress is misguided. Present-day authoritarian power dynamics are not geared towards constructive achievements but rather towards impeding others’ advancements. The strongman is essentially feeble; his stratagem revolves around diminishing the strength of others.
Devoid of accountability to the law and the electorate, a dictator harbors no incentive to consider anything beyond his personal interests. In the 21st century, these interests are rudimentary: amassing wealth and evading legal repercussions. To enrich himself and evade prosecution, the strongman dismantles the judicial system, substituting impartial civil servants with loyalists.
The newly appointed bureaucrats lack a sense of responsibility. Essential governmental functions deteriorate, compelling citizens seeking services to resort to bribery. Officials appointed based on favoritism breed corruption, plunging citizens into despair. Gradually, corruption normalizes and goes unquestioned.
As the illusion of strongman rule dissipates into routine dictatorship, the populace realizes the necessity for basic amenities such as water, education, and social security benefits. However, under a dictatorship, access to such provisions comes at a moral and financial cost. Expressing dissent towards these practices is futile. Americans, accustomed to legal recourse, will find themselves disillusioned. In a courtroom, loyalty and affluence supersede justice. Those unafraid of law enforcement will learn to fear them. Uniformed personnel must either resign or enforce the whims of the ruler.