The Illusion of Power
- Moya Ge
- Nov 8
- 10 min read
In February 2022, Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine. Even before that, many experts had predicted the swift collapse of Vladimir Putin’s regime, under the weight of international sanctions and military setbacks. Yet, years later, Putin remains in power. Why is this? From Nicaragua to North Korea, from Iran to China, a new wave of authoritarian leaders seem to be consolidating power, even in our interconnected, modern age. How do they do this? And what does this tell us about the nature of power itself?
These seemingly disparate events all represent one thing: the violent contest over power.
How do individuals or groups seize control of a nation? And once in power, how do they maintain it against internal and external threats? The Cambridge dictionary defines authoritarianism as ‘the belief that people must obey completely and not be allowed freedom to act as they wish’, but how does this happen in real nations?
This isn’t just about politics, it’s a centuries-old question about human nature and the duality between fear and control. To understand today’s headlines, we must go back to the basics- how is power founded, and how is it maintained?
The foundation of power
Power can be simply taken by force, but it’s usually never that easy. The best way to seize the levers of power is usually down to lucky conditions first and foremost - which allow the autocrats to paint a positive picture of themselves in the minds of the citizenry, and therefore be accepted.
The first is one of political opportunity or of exploiting a crisis or a power vacuum. Historically, authoritarians often rise in times of deep uncertainty or crisis. This could be war; or the population’s dissatisfaction with the existing government, or perhaps economic depression or social unrest - even a pandemic, like what we faced earlier in the decade. Authoritarians offer simple, strong solutions to such complex problems. The most obvious example here might be Hitler, whose appointment to Chancellor of Germany in 1933 is largely due to the impacts of the Wall Street Crash and Great Depression on the German people, alongside existing dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic, who were incompetent in resolving such issues.
There are still parallels in the modern day: the economic collapse in Venezuela, for example, arguably led to the increased concentration of power with President Nicholas Maduro and his loyalists, who were able to use the crisis to centralise power and suppress their opposition. Another example is the Arab Spring, of which the aftermath led to power vacuums and instability throughout many Arab countries - this instability was then exploited by military leaders, like Egypt’s current President, El-Sisi. Leaders are able to increase their own power by exploiting economic anxiety and cultural fears.
In his ‘Leviathan’, Thomas Hobbes argues that people, in fear of a “nasty, brutish and short” life, willingly surrender freedoms to a powerful sovereign or ruler, in exchange for security and order. We can see this reflected in real life as the authoritarian offers themselves as the solution to chaos, and are usually readily received, at least at first. This shows how easy it is for power to be consolidated in the face of disorder.
Naturally, a powerful tool for founding a regime is also through the manipulation of the minds of the people, without whose support a regime cannot be founded. This is often through the creation of a common enemy. Even disregarding authoritarianism, a common enemy has always been something that can unify people - such as Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin working together against their common enemy of Hitler, and that alliance dissipating as soon as that common enemy was gone. In the case of authoritarianism, Carl Schmitt, a key figure in the development of neo-authoritarian populism, argues that politics is defined by the distinction between the ‘friend and enemy’. Populism is a political approach that describes the conflict between the ‘pure people’ versus the ‘corrupt elite’ or a defined, threatening ‘other’. Although inherently neither right nor left wing, right-wing populism has been on the rise in recent years - you might have heard Trumpist and MAGA politics being referred to as thus. Donald Trump’s use of nationalist rhetoric, especially, places immigrants, ethnic minorities and foreign nations as common scapegoats to effectively create a unified base for his loyalists. Since 2016, one of Trump’s commonly used slogans was ‘Drain the swamp!’, used to describe his plans to fix problems in America’s federal government. In February 2025, Trump used this slogan to defend mass deportation by claiming that ‘the illegal aliens are being sent home…we are draining the swamp’. This populist language, alongside the term ‘Make America Great Again’ in itself, creates an ‘us versus them’ ideology, creating an emotional investment for many MAGA supporters, driving conflict and anti-immigrant sentiment, among other things. The narrative of grievance Trump built fosters group identity and justifies extreme measures, which is how authoritarian leaders are commonly able to grasp onto power with true support from the population.
And once they are able to, autocrats will control the law and change it to suit their own interests, or even to criminalise opposition. Courts and legislatures are used to legitimise their own power, and institutions like the independent judiciary and the free press are weakened. Elections may be held but are not free or fail — a prime example of this being what occurred in Eastern European countries like Poland following the Second World War, where elections were fixed to make the countries USSR satellite states. This still happens even today, when Hungary’s current Prime Minister Viktor Orban rewrote electoral laws a few years ago, to favour his own party and ultimately be reelected. Once they have control of the law, the regime is effectively allowed to do whatever they please. This may commonly lead to the regime weakening other institutions designed to limit their power. One of the reasons Hitler was able to gain ultimate power of Germany was because of the 1933 Enabling Act, which allowed him full control of the law and therefore allowed him to make his own choices without consulting the German government (Reichstag). This is what defines a regime as wholly authoritarian and what allows the power to be held fully by the autocrat.
The maintenance of power
But how does one sustain power when it’s seized? Naturally one of the first ways that comes to mind is through force and fear, like Machiavelli says. Some countries still do this — for example, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran. It is clear that it can still be an effective method. But in the 21st century, where people around the world are increasingly educated and many countries are willing to impose sanctions, force isn’t necessarily the most prudent method. So what is?
An obvious way is through modern propaganda and controlling information. Antonio Gramsci’s idea of ‘cultural hegemony’ - that power is maintained not just by force, but by shaping the overall culture, ideas and values to make the regime’s authority seem natural and legitimate - is a political philosophy that applies to many authoritarian regimes. Similarly, Walter Lippmann coined the term ‘manufacture of consent’, meaning that consent for governance can be engineered through propaganda. This can be seen in the real world as countries use propaganda to control the media narrative and create a cult of personality around the leader. Even in the modern day, social media campaigns on sites like Telegram and X (Twitter) are able to spread a regime’s message directly, both domestically and internationally. Trump especially, often used his platform on X (before he was banned) to spread disinformation campaigns or smear opponents. This propaganda often takes on a nationalist approach. Wrapping the regime in a flag and national identity makes criticism seem unpatriotic. On the other side of the spectrum, censorship is also used by countries famously, China is known for its strict internet censorship, its legislative actions and controls even being dubbed ‘The Great Firewall of China. This allows for the regime to present itself to its people in the exact way it wants, without any criticism - leading to a stability in the regime with cultural hegemony and an increase in manufactured consent, seemingly normalising the regime for the people and giving them little reason to question it.
A key to stability for such regimes is also in providing some level of economic prosperity. Authoritarians often promise this to gain initial support, by promising (and sometimes delivering) economic growth and stability. For example, China’s CCP justifies its one-party rule by pointing to decades of unprecedented economic growth that lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and to the vast majority of Chinese citizens, this is enough to justify the government’s control of political freedom. Often the regime creates a system of crony capitalism, where the state awards government contracts and resources to loyal allies in business and industry, and blacklists critics. Business success therefore depends on the business’ loyalty to the regime. For example, oligarchs in Russia are immensely wealthy but utterly dependent on Putin’s favour. This shows how the economy and control of money is often used as a weapon within authoritarianism. In petrostates like Russia or Saudi Arabia, power flows from resource control, usually with oil and gas revenues, which fund the state and its patronage system. There are also social benefits to the regime’s economic control, and it might grant stability, jobs and social welfare to those who stay in line, allowing the regime a greater chance of being accepted by the people.
The volatility of power
However, if one thing’s for certain, it’s that power is never static and the balance is easily shifted. It must be noted that the reasons for the building and maintenance of power, as shown above, are almost entirely dependent on the regime being accepted by the people. And without that support, a government can lose control just as quickly as they gained it.
A key way this might happen is through what is known as elite fragmentation, when the ruling class or key supporters of the regime (in the military or in business) start fighting among themselves, and turn against the leader, because their own interests like money or influence are being threatened. This is partially what led to the dissolution of the USSR, as Mikhail Gorbachev’s new policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) led to the weakening of the communist ideology, and therefore the central government’s control, allowing for republican and regional elites, many of whom were more concerned with maintaining their privileges than maintaining communism, to assert more power, leading to fragmentation within the regime.
A simpler reason for a regime’s collapse, that is not dependent on the views of its people, is the issue with succession - when the regime’s leader dies or becomes incapacitated, there is another power vacuum, and authoritarian systems often lack a clear, peaceful process for the transfer of power. Although this does happen, the power vacuum might simply create conditions for another autocrat to come in, exploit the crisis and build their own authoritarian regime.
International pressure is also something that could contribute to the end of an authoritarian regime - sanctions might weaken a regime’s economic foundation and put pressure on it. However, this might often contribute to the regime’s propaganda and allow them to create a common foreign enemy for the people, so it’s debatable how impactful this is.
So arguably the most important factor in ending a regime is popular uprisings, when the people find economic hardships or political oppression too much to bear, and rise up against the regime. One of the most famous historical successes might be the French Revolution, which overthrew the authoritarian French government and uprooted centuries-old institutions, providing principles of legal equality and citizen rights. Arguably a key reason for this was the existing discontent among the people due to gross inequality from the rigid hierarchical division in society, as well as influence from the Enlightenment providing an ideological and intellectual foundation for the movement. Similarly, in 1973, the Thai popular uprising overthrew the existing military dictatorship, and key factors included the economic discontent, and growing dissatisfaction from intellectually-free university students and a major catalyst was the Thung Yai hunting scandal which was crucial for exposing government corruption, leading to widespread public outrage and escalated protests, ultimately leading to the popular uprising. This stresses the importance of an informed and engaged citizenry in ending an authoritarian regime. Furthermore, many of the factors that could potentially lead to the fall of an authoritarian regime such as war, economic collapse, etc. are important because they might expose weaknesses in the regime and create internal dissent, often leading to popular uprisings, emphasising their importance. This highlights that at the end of the day, the power arguably always lies with the masses. Even Machiavelli agrees with this, stating that “the best fortress is to be found in the love of the people, for although you may have fortresses they will not save you if you are hated by the people”. This is arguably where most authoritarian regimes fail - they forget to fully account for and acknowledge the rights of the people.
In conclusion, authoritarian power is a complex structure that spreads far beyond simple control. Modern authoritarian regimes are founded not merely on brute strength, but on a calculated mix of political manipulation, economic control and philosophical justification — but ultimately, dependent on the actions (or lack thereof) or its people. The struggle between authoritarianism and democracy is a defining feature of our time, and understanding the mechanics of power — and the position of the people — is the first step in defending its abuse around the world. The balance of power is never truly settled, and as history shows, no regime, no matter how powerful it seems, is invulnerable forever.
Reference
Bibliography:
ANI (2025) #WATCH | Addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, US President Donald Trump says, "The fraudsters, liars, cheaters, globalists, and 'deep state' bureaucrats are being sent back. The illegal aliens are being sent home. We are draining the swamp... For years, Washington was controlled by a sinister group of radical Left Marxists..." Source: US Network Pool via Reuters [Twitter], 22 February. Available from: https://x.com/ANI/status/1893403230388003222 [Accessed 28 October 2025].
Petrov, N. (2016). PUTIN’S DOWNFALL: THE COMING CRISIS OF THE RUSSIAN REGIME. London: European Council on Foreign Relations.
Machiavelli, N. (1532). The Prince.
Wade, H.E. & Goscilo, M.B. (2023). Enabling Act of 1933. Retrieved from https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/enabling-act-1933
Mankikar, K.A. (22 September 2021). Poverty Alleviation and Political Primacy: The Way of the Chinese Communist Party. Retrieved from https://www.orfonline.org/research/poverty-alleviation-and-political-primacy
Vera, L. (28 January 2025). The cost of authoritarianism. Retrieved from https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/economy-and-ecology/the-cost-of-authoritarianism-8050/
Scheppele, K. L. (July 2022). How Viktor Orbán Wins. Retrieved from https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/how-viktor-orban-wins/
Smith, D. (22 December 2023). How Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is taking over the Republican party. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/22/trump-anti-immigrant-rhetoric-republican-party
Tognini, G. & Hyatt, J. (7 April 2022). The Forbes Ultimate Guide To Russian Oligarchs. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2022/04/07/the-forbes-ultimate-guide-to-russian-oligarchs/
Gorokhovskaia, Y. & Grothe, C. (2024). Freedom in the World 2024: The Mounting Damage of Flawed Elections and Armed Conflict. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/FIW_2024_DigitalBooklet.pdf
King, G., Pan, J. & Roberts, M. (2017). How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, Not Engaged Argument. Retrieved from
The Federal. (23 February 2025). Trump defends mass deportation, vows to drain the swamp. Retrieved from https://thefederal.com/category/international/trump-defends-mass-deportations-vows-to-drain-the-swamp-173327
CRF Editors. (13 June 2025). The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/irans-revolutionary-guards
Delgado, D. (31 October 2024). Trump’s MAGA forces scapegoat immigrants to divide and conquer voters. Retrieved from https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/trumps-maga-forces-scapegoat-immigrants-to-divide-and-conquer-voters/
Chan, C., Dao, A., Hou, J., Jin, T. & Tuong, C. (2011). China’s Great Firewall. Retrieved from https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/FreeExpressionVsSocialCohesion/china_policy.html
University of Birmingham. (13 June 2023). The rise of authoritarianism is misunderstood – and it matters. Retrieved from https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2023/how-the-global-rise-of-authoritarianism-is-misunderstood-and-why-it-matters
The rest are books some of which are are in the public domain soooo
Comments