Throughout the centuries, authoritarian regimes have demonstrated an undying desire to retain power, most often at the cost of their own people. This “undying will to rule” manifests in terms of leaders who place more emphasis on personal or party domination than on mass-based governance, thereby entrenching cycles of instability and conflict. Rather than creating systems which respond to people’s issues, most dictatorships institutionalize political environments where corruption thrives and backward-looking policies stifle growth. The result is not just stagnation but also chronic societal discontent that can overflow into protest, civil war, or breakdown of the system.

As decisions become disconnected from the needs of everyday life, governments waste money, squander priorities, and generate inequality. The persistence of corruption in these environments is not accidental but structural, since leaders rely on patronage networks and rent-seeking as a means to achieve loyalty and not accountability¹.

The world record demonstrates the ruinous effects of unrestrained power: from economic meltdown in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, to years of internecine conflict in Syria under Bashar al-Assad, to the decades of suppression in North Korea. All these examples demonstrate the same contradiction, presidents who promise to maintain order while reaping havoc through ignoring the people.

As AWiB Connects discusses the topic From Chaos to Coherence: Leadership that Listens this paper delves into the grab for power. It explores how authoritarianism, by design, undermines the coherence which is necessary for long-term national development. By exploring how it produces corruption and backwardness, it seeks to highlight the broader dynamics of authoritarian rule and their implications for societies striving for progress. The paper also makes an argument that Leadership that Listens is the cure to the destruction authoritarianism creates.

Authoritarian regimes have been widely studied in political science, with scholars debating both their origins and their consequences. At the core of these systems power is highly centralized, with limited checks and balances. The persistence of authoritarianism often arises from rulers’ obsession with control, which is maintained through repression, patronage, and propaganda³. Such regimes rarely emerge by accident; they are usually designed to consolidate dominance while minimizing opportunities for dissent.

One major consequence of authoritarian rule is the erosion of mechanisms that allow citizen participation. Linz (2000) notes that authoritarian leaders shun institutionalizing avenues for feedback, instead choosing to suppress other voices rather than adapting to them. The lack of adequate avenues for communication between citizens and rulers weakens accountability and results in policies that have no relation to people’s demands. Over time, the disconnection can lead to resentment and open the door for instability.

Corruption is a fundamental aspect of authoritarian regimes. Politicians rely on patron-client networks to purchase loyalty, remunerating elites’ rents and privilege rather than merit rule¹. Corruption not only exacerbates inequality but also diverts funds away from development. Instead of utilizing money for education, infrastructure, or health systems, money is captured by a narrow clique of beneficiaries.

Delays in development have been also blamed on authoritarian institutions. Sen (1999) argued that the absence of free criticism and debate in nondemocracies leads to poor decision-making, particularly under conditions of crises. Silencing free press and civil society denies corrective feedback to political leaders, sustaining flawed policies that hinder economic and social progress.

Collectively, these arguments point to how dictators institutionalize power-grabbing, repress citizen voices, entrench corruption, and hinder development. They serve as the foundation of understanding the mechanisms of chaos and unrest addressed in the next section.

The undying will to rule generates predictable mechanisms that erode governance and destabilize societies. The first is centralization of power, whereby rulers eliminate checks and balances, maintain the executive position within consolidated powers, and push aside institutions designed to protect accountability. This generally includes purges within ruling parties, manipulation of constitutions, and the destruction of independent judiciaries⁵. Patronage networks also reinforce exclusionary politics by rewarding loyalty over competence.

The second mechanism is dissent suppression. Police, military, or intelligence agencies repression is commonly employed by dictatorships to silence opponents. Propaganda is deployed to generate legitimacy by censoring free media. Suppression rarely eliminates discontent, however. Instead, it pushes opposition movements underground, inducing polarization and, in most cases, violent insurgencies.

Corruption is another destabilizing outcome. When power is at the center, elites and rulers seize public money for personal benefit. Not only does this damage economic development but it also erodes trust in public institutions according to Transparency International, 2023 publication. When inequality increases, citizens distrust the state’s ability to provide vital services, infuriating them.

There are go-back policies too, which further heighten unrest. By resisting reforms, rulers preserve out-of-date economic models and social arrangements that curb growth. Investments in education, infrastructure, and research are neglected at the expense of expenditure on defense or vanity projects. Amartya Sen’s writing on famines reveals how a scarcity of free media and oppositional politics has a tendency to prolong or deepen a crisis⁸.

Finally, accumulation of grievances leads to spirals of discontent. Protests, rebellions, and revolts are common responses to authoritarian stagnation. The ruling elite responds with repression, heightening further instability. The result is a spiral of disorder in which rulers and citizens cannot achieve security or development.

The dynamics described above are observed everywhere but vary according to history and institutions.

Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is a stark illustration of the long-term consequence of authoritarianism. Originally celebrated as the bringer of independence to the nation, Mugabe increasingly centralized authority, dispensed with rivals, and cemented patronage networks. Land reform, while initially aimed at addressing colonial imbalances, was carried out in a way that annihilated food security and led to the collapse of the economy⁶. Hyperinflation and international isolation followed, resulting in great-scale emigration and ongoing unrest.

Bashar al-Assad’s Syria illustrates how repression turns into long-term conflict. Assad inherited an authoritarian state from his father and maintained power by a combination of coercion and patronage. When protests erupted in 2011, the government’s heavy-handed crackdown pushed tensions into civil war. Millions were displaced, infrastructure destroyed, and one of the worst humanitarian disasters of the 21st century was unleashed⁷.

North Korea offers a case of deep-rooted dictatorship. There has been decades-long rule by the Kim dynasty by means of repression, cult of personality, and militarism-first policies. The country is underdeveloped and isolated, with extreme poverty and limited freedoms. Stability appears to be maintained at the cost of stagnation and systematic abuses of human rights⁴.

Setting these cases side by side shows both shared patterns and variations. They all show how a refusal to hear brings about corruption, retrogression, and turmoil. The difference lies in what follows: economic ruin in Zimbabwe, civil war in Syria, and isolation in North Korea. Together, they show the diverse but harmful consequences of authoritarian survival.

While the destructive nature of authoritarianism is well documented, it is important to recognize nuances and counterarguments. Some authoritarian regimes have initially delivered stability or even economic growth. Singapore during Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership, for example, is often cited as an instance where limited political liberty coexisted with rapid development⁹. China has also had phenomenal economic growth under single-party rule, though there remain ongoing concerns about repression and inequality.

Such examples show that authoritarianism is not immediately followed by collapse or stagnation. It has, in certain cases, worked through top-down power to achieve fast decision-making and long-term planning. Such outcomes are exceptions to the rule. Also, the absence of accountability procedures threatens with sudden crises whenever leadership disintegrates or there is a shock from the outside.

A second cause of complexity is external pressure. International economic turmoil, sanctions, and geopolitics often constrain what the ruler can undertake. Citizens themselves may also create authoritarian resilience by cooperating, being afraid, or being dependent on patronage networks. These factors imply that authoritarianism cannot be explained as the result of rulers’ will but is shaped by underlying structural and social forces.

If dictatorships perpetuate unrest by silencing citizens, then leadership that listens calls for institutional reforms that restore accountability and participation. Stable institutions like independent judiciaries, free media, and watchdog agencies can help prevent excessive centralization of power. Decentralized governance provides citizens with greater opportunities to influence decisions that impact their daily lives.

Empowering citizens is also important. Civic engagement, education, and an engaged civil society make leaders amenable to multiple perspectives. Nonviolent methods of dissent such as free elections and public hearings provide channels for grievances to be heard prior to the emergence of unrest.

Transparency and anti-corruption measures are crucial to the re-establishment of confidence. Institutions such as independent audits, open data, and whistleblower protection can discipline rent-seeking and channel resources towards development priorities.

Finally, incremental democratization is necessary. Term limits, fair elections, and protection of minority rights create a culture of political renewal. Foreign powers can promote these changes through conditionality aid, diplomatic diplomacy, and the promotion of human rights, but otherwise, reforms must be internally initiated.

Leadership that listens is not merely a moral imperative but a practical necessity. By engaging with citizens and ensuring accountability, governments are able to replace cycles of anarchy with informed pathways to stability and development.

Authoritarianism reveals the dangers of power pursued for its own sake. By silencing citizens, entrenching corruption, and resisting progress, authoritarian regimes create environments of chaos and unrest that undermine long-term stability. The cases of Zimbabwe, Syria, and North Korea illustrate how the refusal to listen leads to different yet equally destructive outcomes.

Whereas authoritarianism in theory can bring about order or progress, such instances are unusual and are often unstable. In the absence of check and voice from citizens, even seemingly stable autocracies risk collapse.

The alternative lies in leadership that listens. Institutions, transparency, and empowerment of citizens provide the foundations for coherence rather than chaos. History has also shown that societies who put inclusive governance on their agenda are in a better position to achieve sustainable development and peace. 

The challenge, therefore, is not just to replace leaders but to create systems that prevent the undying will to rule from undermining the collective good.

References

1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Publishers.Barr, M. D. (2000). Lee Kuan Yew: The Beliefs Behind the Man. Georgetown University Press.
2. Freedom House. (2023). Freedom in the World 2023. Freedom House.
3. Geddes, B., Wright, J., & Frantz, E. (2018). How Dictatorships Work: Power, Personalization, and Collapse. Cambridge University Press.
4. Haggard, S., & Noland, M. (2011). Witness to Transformation: Refugee Insights into North Korea. Peterson Institute for International Economics.
5. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.
6. Meredith, M. (2002). Our Votes, Our Guns: Robert Mugabe and the Tragedy of Zimbabwe. PublicAffairs.
7. Phillips, C. (2016). The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East. Yale University Press.
8. Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Alfred A. Knopf.
9. Barr, M. D. (2000). Lee Kuan Yew: The Beliefs Behind the Man. Georgetown University Press.

Share to your circles!