Why Dictators Fail

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." — Lord Acton

Every dictatorship starts as a fantasy.

A population enveloped by problems beyond its control desperately seeks a daddy-figure to make everything right again. They cling to soundbites and bullshit, convincing themselves that they be true. In these environments, arrogance outmuscles rationality, so those pointing to evidence or logic are left behind.

It's childish. Reminds me of the nonsensical promises teens make when running for class president. Remember Summer Wheatley's speech from Napoleon Dynamite?

I would make a great class president because I promise to put two new pop machines in the cafeteria, and I'm also gonna get a glitter Bonne Bell dispenser for all the girls' bathrooms. Oh, and we're gonna get new cheerleading uniforms. Anyway, I think I'd be a great class president. So, who wants to eat chimichangas next year? Not me. See, with me it will be summer all year long. Vote for Summer.

Change a few words and these tricks work just as well with the unwashed masses. Unfortunately, unlike high school the consequences are disasterous - especially, when checks and balances are dismantled by dictators.

Dictators will promise anything to get into power. Once unrestrained, they are reckless, paranoid, and more focused on holding onto power than governing well.

Dictators don’t answer to anyone. They replace competent officials with loyalists. They rule by fear. They rarely step down voluntarily. Muammar Gaddafi ruled Libya for 42 years before rebels dragged him out of a drainage pipe and shot him. The Kim dynasty in North Korea clings to power by isolating their people from the outside world. When dictators fall, they take their countries down with them.

I started this article researching examples of successful dictatorships, economically and socially. "Success" is subjective, but one could argue China over the past 25 years has made significant economic and social progress, despite (or because of?) it's political structure. Clearly most dictatorships don't share this degree of success.

As I did my research, what I started to find common reasons why most dictatorships cannot succeed. Structurally, its almost impossible for this type of system to last. I consolidated these findings into three broad themes, which I share below.

"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." — Attributed to Joseph Stalin

1) They Rule by Fear, Not Competence

Dictators fear opposition, since opposition risks displacing their power. So they surround themselves with yes-men, marginalizing - often by imprisonment or execution - those with contradictory views. Given the the consequences of speaking up, facts, intelligence, and information is suppressed in favor of alignment.

Valuing loyalty over competence, they weaken both their government and country.

Stalin’s Great Purge (1936-1938) was a masterclass in self-destruction. After the assassination of Sergei Kirov, Stalin used it as an excuse to purge rivals. He had 700,000 people executed and sent millions to the Gulag. The NKVD, his secret police, tortured people into confessing to imaginary crimes. He purged military officers, leaving the Red Army weakened before World War II. His paranoia crippled his own government, ensuring that survival - not effectiveness - became the priority.

When competence isn't protected, as it is in a democracy, a country becomes vulnerable economically and militarily.

2) They Destroy Their Own Economies

Dictators promise economic miracles, but they usually end up making things worse. Without accountability, they make reckless choices. Corruption runs rampant. Mismanagement turns prosperity into collapse.

Mao Zedong launched the Great Leap Forward to rapidly industrialize China. He forced millions of peasants to stop farming and work on backyard steel furnaces, which produced useless metal. Meanwhile, collective farms had to meet impossible grain quotas, and local officials, afraid of punishment, lied about production numbers. The government took food that didn’t exist, leaving millions to starve. Mao’s policies killed 30 to 45 million people. Instead of admitting failure, he launched the Cultural Revolution, purging intellectuals and wrecking institutions.

Nicolás Maduro turned Venezuela, once one of the richest oil nations, into a failed state. He seized businesses, set price controls that discouraged production, and printed massive amounts of money to cover deficits. Inflation skyrocketed past 1,000,000%, wiping out savings. Basic goods became luxuries. Over seven million people fled. Instead of fixing the economy, he jailed opponents and crushed protests.

Similar to point #1, in a country where competence is suppressed the leader can do no wrong. They overestimate their planning prowess, and start fiddling with things instead of allowing economies to operate organically.

3) They Start Wars They Can’t Win

Dictators need enemies. It distracts from their failures and rallies their people. Just look how quickly US tariffs imposed on Canada rallied the Canadian people around a common cause. Dictators use that to their advantage.

Wars require strategy and resources, and dictators often have neither.

For example, despite early successes, Hitler pursued an expansionist vision that was doomed to fail by his own arrogance.

Early in the war, Blitzkrieg tactics crushed Poland, France, and much of Europe. But Germany relied on quick victories and couldn’t sustain a long war. When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, he underestimated Soviet resistance. He expected a swift collapse, but the Soviets had manpower, brutal winters, and an industrial base far from the front lines. Then he declared war on the U.S., bringing the world’s largest economy into the fight. Germany couldn’t match Allied production. His refusal to retreat or adapt sealed his fate. Like most dictators, he valued loyalty over competence, and that ensured his downfall.

"Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry." — Winston Churchill

How the U.S. Is Following the Authoritarian Playbook

Dictatorships sometimes work in the short term. They promise order, discipline and reforms that benefit the public. That is their appeal. But absolute power breeds corruption, fear, and incompetence.

Democracy isn’t perfect, but it’s the only system that allows for self-correction. Leaders come and go. Power shifts peacefully. People have a say. Dictatorships promise stability, but history shows they always end in collapse.

Sadly, the U.S. has been following the footsteps of many failed states.

Non-partisan civil servants, military leaders, and supreme court justices are being replaced with loyalists. Cabinet members and party representatives are captured by group think, with little room for unaligned views. This was plain to see in yesterday's State of the Union address.

Overall, competence is being replaced with obedience. We've seen how this plays out. This is the same playbook dictators use - gutting institutions, consolidating power, and justifying it with promises of restoring greatness, eliminating enemies, and enforcing order.

We are abandoning facts and discourse, and accelerating the destruction of our planet and civilization. The loudest voice wins, and no right-leaning politician would dare push back on plans to ban the words "climate change" or to end environmental regulations. Rather, we're at the stage where plutocrats count their money as the world burns.

I have long predicted the polycrisis, like other crises before, would trigger the rise of authoritarianism. It's just sad to see it play out so predictably, as everyone cheers.

Like those preceding it, this is bound to fail. Unfortunately, it'll take the rest of the world with it. Perhaps this was the final inescapable death blow - the planet in crisis was going to off us either way. I just hoped we'd have a bit longer.