PDF Summary:Strongmen, by Ruth Ben-Ghiat

Authoritarian leaders have repeatedly seized power throughout history, and their methods follow consistent patterns. In Strongmen, historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat examines how these leaders rise to power and maintain control over their nations. She explains the tactics they use—from propaganda and corruption to violence and surveillance—and how they reshape societies to serve their personal interests rather than the public good.

Ben-Ghiat also explores how these regimes eventually collapse and what resistance looks like under authoritarian rule. She discusses the role of collective action, transparency, and accountability in countering strongman tactics. This guide examines the structure of authoritarian governments, the dynamics between leaders and their supporters, and the lasting damage these regimes leave behind—offering insight into both the mechanics of autocratic power and the paths toward democratic resilience.

(continued)...

Strongman States and Economic Growth

While strongman states often bring poverty, this isn’t always the case. Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi argue that some strongman states have experienced rapid income growth. They argue that the economic performance of strongman states depends on the policies they adopt and the degree of macroeconomic stability they maintain. For example, some strongman states have implemented market-oriented reforms, invested in infrastructure, and promoted export-led growth, leading to sustained economic expansion. However, they acknowledge that the relationship between regime type and economic performance is complex and context-dependent, with some strongman states experiencing economic stagnation or decline due to mismanagement, corruption, or external shocks.

In the next sections, we’ll discuss authoritarianism, personalist rule, rhetoric, and the dynamics of rule and resistance.

Defining the Regimes

Core Authoritarian Concepts

Ben-Ghiat defines authoritarianism as a government model where executive power overrides the judiciary and legislative branches.

(Shortform note: Ben-Ghiat’s definition of authoritarianism is one of many. In his 1975 book Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, political scientist Juan J. Linz defined authoritarianism as a government with limited political pluralism and low political mobilization.)

She adds that authoritarian leaders often employ populist rhetoric to describe their nations by religion, ethnicity, and race. Populism often describes movements and political organizations that promote the undemocratic evolution of politics.

Populism isn’t intrinsically authoritarian, but numerous strongmen have leveraged it to characterize their countries by religion, race, and ethnicity instead of legal entitlements. In authoritarian systems, only certain people are considered part of "the people," irrespective of where they were born or their citizenship. The leader, who stands beyond all institutions, exclusively represents that group. In authoritarian regimes, criticism of the leader is equated with attacking the country itself, and dissenters are called "terrorists" or "enemies of the people."

Populism’s Ambivalent Relationship With Democracy

In Populism: A Very Short Introduction, political scientists Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser offer a different perspective on populism. They define populism as a “thin-centered ideology” that divides society into “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite,” demanding that politics reflect the general will of the people. Unlike Ben-Ghiat, they argue that populism isn’t inherently democratic or undemocratic but has an ambivalent relationship with democracy. They suggest that populism can act as a democratic corrective by mobilizing excluded citizens and neglected issues, potentially deepening democratic participation and responsiveness. This view contrasts with Ben-Ghiat’s emphasis on populism’s role in driving an undemocratic evolution of politics.

Ben-Ghiat also discusses personalist rule, which concentrates power in one individual, prioritizing their interests above the nation's. She argues that leaders with personalist tendencies are the most harmful type of authoritarian, as they can't separate their needs from those of the nation. Their personal fixations shape how the public converses, shift the priorities of institutions, and drive significant reallocation of resources. Personalist leaders use their country's human and natural resources to generate financial gain. They manage networks of patronage that tie individuals to them through complicity and fear.

(Shortform note: Ben-Ghiat’s discussion of personalist rule builds on the work of political scientists who have studied the different types of autocratic rule. In particular, Barbara Geddes, Joseph Wright, and Erica Frantz have developed a typology of dictatorships that includes personalist rule as a distinct category. Their work has been widely cited and used in comparative politics research, providing a framework for understanding the different ways in which authoritarian regimes operate.)

They surround themselves with relatives and sycophants, using "divide and conquer" methods to keep others from amassing excessive influence. This produces governments full of conflict and upheaval. They use violence to punish those who could reveal their actions, such as journalists and prosecutors. They eliminate elite dissidents and exile entire families, wasting generational talent. They take over or destroy successful companies, harming the economy. They use censorship and suppression to maintain their hold on the people. They provide amnesty and pardons to criminals, making them indebted to the leader and available for service. They create a safe haven in government for criminals, accelerating the "contagion phenomenon." They use corruption to take credit for the country's labor. They treat the country's economy as their personal property.

The Contagion Phenomenon

The “contagion phenomenon” is a term used in The Quest for Good Governance to describe how the actions of a few can become the norm for many. When a small group of people in power break the rules and get away with it, others start to believe that this behavior is acceptable. This creates a new set of unwritten rules that encourage others to follow suit, leading to a widespread acceptance of corrupt practices. The phenomenon shows how quickly and easily unethical behavior can spread when it goes unpunished, changing the expectations and actions of an entire system.

Ben-Ghiat concludes that authoritarian leaders rely on followers and elites to maintain power. Supporters are those who acknowledge the leader's abilities and make his reputation. Elites are the primary collaborators. They introduce the leader to the political structure, believing they can control him. After the leader has attained power, they make an agreement that assures them influence and safety in exchange for their allegiance. Some genuinely believe, while others worry about the repercussions of not backing them. Leaders from other countries likewise bolster strongmen. Heaps of international loans fund the so-called economic wonders that authoritarians create.

The Importance of Elites in Authoritarian Regimes

In The Dictator’s Handbook, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith develop a theory of authoritarianism that distinguishes between supporters and elites. They argue that authoritarian leaders must keep their elites happy to stay in power. They do this by providing private favors to their elites and public favors to their supporters. The authors explain that when authoritarian leaders have access to external resources, such as international loans, they can use these resources to provide more public favors to their supporters. This can help them to create the illusion of economic success and maintain their grip on power.

Defining Characteristics of Contemporary Autocratic Regimes

Ben-Ghiat argues that autocratic leaders use national greatness as a justification for their power. They claim that they alone can rescue the country from internal and external threats. They often use three periods to justify their governance: utopianism, reminiscence, and turmoil. Utopia promises a better future, nostalgia longs for a glorious past, and crisis is the constant state of emergency that requires their leadership. They also claim that they embody the country and its destiny, and that their rule is sanctioned by a greater authority.

Performance Legitimacy

Not all authoritarian regimes rely on national-greatness narratives. Some, like post-Mao China, have justified their rule through economic performance and technocratic competence. Nathan argues that the Chinese Communist Party has shifted from revolutionary ideology to what he calls “performance legitimacy,” focusing on rapid economic growth, social stability, and meritocratic governance. This approach has allowed the party to maintain control without relying on the traditional narratives of utopianism, reminiscence, and turmoil that Ben-Ghiat describes.

The Dynamics of Rule and Resistance

Ben-Ghiat explains that resisting strongman states often involves non-violence and may prove effective. Resistance can take the form of public art and messaging that announces there are individuals who won't believe the regime's lies and abnormality. These individual actions can pierce the shield of official media and provide transformative examples of resistance. Resistance activities take public space back from the state and counter the government’s violence, corruption, and exploitation. They can create a foundation for widespread nonviolent demonstrations that can expand in reaction to state oppression or if the leader's power wanes because of a war that’s going poorly, an election that appears to be fraudulent, or financial difficulty.

(Shortform note: Since the publication of Strongmen, the success rate of nonviolent resistance has declined. In Civil Resistance, Erica Chenoweth explains that while nonviolent resistance campaigns have become more frequent, their success rate has dropped compared to the late 20th century. Chenoweth notes that while nonviolent campaigns still achieve their goals more often than violent ones, the overall effectiveness of nonviolent resistance has diminished in the 21st century. This decline in success rates suggests that authoritarian regimes have become more adept at countering nonviolent movements, employing sophisticated surveillance, disinformation, and repression tactics. Despite this trend, Chenoweth emphasizes that nonviolent resistance remains the most reliable path to major democratic change, as it continues to outperform armed struggles in achieving strategic objectives.)

A significant number of protesters can demonstrate to international financiers and the leader's local supporters that aiding him could result in consequences. Protests may be shared, celebratory events that create areas of connection and support. Protests can also strongly oppose the leader's assertion of control over the physical and spiritual, such as through acts of self-immolation, which highlight injustice and urge others to act. Inaction can likewise be a powerful statement. For example, ignoring radio broadcasts of the leader, refusing to perform the Nazi greeting, or keeping your children out of state-sponsored youth events all had consequences. Women have rejected being instruments for the state's demographic plans.

(Shortform note: When protests are large enough, they can signal to foreign lenders and domestic supporters that the leader is no longer a safe investment. This is because large protests can lead to credit downgrades, capital flight, and reduced profits for businesses. For example, when protests in Hong Kong escalated in 2019, Moody's downgraded the city's credit rating, citing the government's inability to resolve the political crisis. This downgrade made it more expensive for Hong Kong to borrow money and signaled to investors that the situation was unstable. Similarly, when protests in Chile erupted in 2019, the country's stock market plummeted, and the Chilean peso hit a record low against the US dollar. These economic consequences can make it more attractive for foreign lenders and domestic supporters to withdraw their support from the leader, as they may see continued support as too risky.)

They refused to bear children for the regime, choosing to risk imprisonment to access contraception and undergo abortions. Some of the most impactful ways people resist remain private. People have clandestinely documented deaths they observe to counteract the government covering up its wrongdoing. By expressing loyalty to the slain opponents of the strongman, people counteract the state's effort to make them forgotten.

Everyday Resistance

Political anthropologist James C. Scott’s concept of “everyday resistance” helps explain why refusing to bear children for the regime and clandestinely documenting deaths are so powerful. In Domination and the Arts of Resistance, Scott argues that what he calls “hidden transcripts”—the subtle, often anonymous acts of defiance that occur outside the direct gaze of the powerful—can be more effective than open rebellion. These quiet acts of resistance erode the strongman’s official story, revealing the regime’s vulnerability and the limits of its control.

Ben-Ghiat adds that advancements in media and technology have altered how people organize opposition and how authoritarian leaders try to thwart it. Social media allows resisters to coordinate and connect globally, creating networks to share information and support each other. Digital narrative techniques assist protestors in addressing and revealing state oppression. Social media can counteract the despondency and immobilizing terror that authoritarian regimes cultivate. It further boosts how humor derived from caricature can humanize.

Resistance continues to rely on a physical presence: individuals retake public spaces and give voice and visibility to a different nation. Images and strategies from in-person protests continue to inspire protestors today. One instance of resistance motivates others.

In response, authoritarian rulers block social media platforms, overwhelm the ones they allow with misinformation and trolls, and track dissidents digitally, both within the country and in exile.

How to Use Social Media for Resistance

In your day-to-day life, you can use social media to share information and support others. However, be aware that authoritarian leaders can use social media to track and target dissidents. To protect yourself and others, consider using encrypted messaging apps and secure communication channels. Be mindful of the information you share online and the digital footprint you leave behind. If you’re involved in organizing or participating in protests, use social media for symbolic actions that are visible and low-risk, while moving more sensitive organizing to smaller, encrypted channels. Remember that even in the digital age, physical presence and in-person connections remain powerful tools for resistance. Use social media to amplify these efforts, but don't rely on it as your sole means of organizing. By combining digital and physical strategies, you can help build a more resilient and effective resistance movement.

Next, we’ll explore how dictatorial regimes can collapse and how resistance can help maintain democracy.

Internal Decay and Collapse

Ben-Ghiat argues that regimes with authoritarian leaders often collapse due to internal decay and conflict. Authoritarian leaders often act on impulse and are easily angered, and they use "divide and conquer" strategies to stop others from accumulating excessive influence. This leads to governments filled with discord and turbulence. The leader's team spends time managing the fallout when he hurls insults at rivals, undermines his advisors, shifts direction, and creates disorder.

Authoritarian Leaders Are Vulnerable to Insider Removal

In The Politics of Authoritarian Rule, Milan W. Svolik presents a cross-national analysis of 316 non-democratic rulers from 1946 to 2008. He finds that the majority of dictators lose office through coups, plots, and other irregular removals carried out by insiders, while only a smaller share are ousted by popular uprisings or foreign powers. Svolik argues that when rulers concentrate authority in their own hands and sideline institutions designed to share power, they increase the probability that dissatisfied insiders will organize their removal from office.

Strategies of Resistance and Democratic Resilience

Ben-Ghiat argues that resistance to authoritarian regimes requires solidarity and collective action. It also necessitates the right circumstances, planning, and incentives stemming from anger and overcoming fear.

The coronavirus pandemic created the opportunity for widespread demonstrations in the US. Widespread joblessness and flexible remote work pushed people to protest. The elevated threat of a White supremacist leading the country surpassed the danger of infection. However, the protests emphasized the growing risks of opposing authority under Trump.

Numerous states had increased protest-related misdemeanor offenses to felonies and redefined protests as riots, resulting in the possibility of participants being labeled "economic terrorists and saboteurs." In 2018, West Virginia removed police accountability for deaths resulting from police measures to break up uprisings and illegal gatherings. Numerous police arrived at the demonstrations with extremist right-wing views.

The Impact of the Capitol Riot on Law Enforcement

The January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol and the subsequent investigations have prompted a reevaluation of how authorities handle large political gatherings. The Capitol riot exposed significant gaps in intelligence sharing and preparedness among law enforcement agencies. In response, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security have increased their focus on domestic extremism, particularly from far-right groups. The National Guard has also revised its protocols for rapid deployment in response to civil unrest. These changes reflect a broader shift in how security agencies assess and respond to potential threats at political events, balancing the need for public safety with the protection of civil liberties.

Ben-Ghiat also argues that responsibility and openness are essential for combating authoritarianism. Strongmen claim they're exempt from legal constraints and judgment. They mix reality and fabrication, the lawful and unlawful, celebrity and politics, so that nothing holds meaning anymore. They normalize unethical actions and weaken their political enablers' influence. They leverage their influence to advance their enterprises. They get rid of inquiries regarding finances and professional references, complicating efforts to uncover conflicts of interest and facilitating the hiring of people who might engage in corruption or won’t challenge administration practices.

(Shortform note: In Thieves of State, Sarah Chayes argues that in many countries, what is often dismissed as “corruption” is actually the operating system of a vertically integrated criminal network that has hijacked the state. In these systems, top officials distribute government positions, contracts, and licenses to trusted network members so they can extract illicit revenue. Chayes shows how rules about merit-based recruitment, background checks, financial disclosure, and audits are systematically hollowed out or bent into instruments of the network. Appointments are decided not by professional qualifications or integrity but by an individual’s proven willingness and capacity to generate illegal income for the hierarchy above them.)

To counter autocratic rule, we should emphasize the importance of openness and holding the government accountable. We must educate people on the benefits of being transparent and accountable, fostering governmental and work environments that discourage corrupt behavior. We can persuade influential figures to collaborate with groups that combat corruption. We can back community-focused and nonprofit groups that strive for fairness and responsibility. We can also pressure financial institutions, legal professionals, and others who facilitate authoritarian corruption to reconsider working for autocrats. The media must highlight the narratives of people who denounce corruption.

The Unintended Consequences of Fighting Corruption

While these tactics may be effective, they can also have unintended consequences. For example, if financial institutions and legal professionals refuse to work with autocrats, these leaders may move their assets to countries with even less transparency, making it harder to hold them accountable. This can make it more difficult to recover stolen assets and hold corrupt officials accountable. For example, when the US imposed sanctions on Russian oligarchs, they moved their assets to countries like the United Arab Emirates, which has less stringent financial regulations.