Dictators such as Vladimir Putin and Co. are considered strong and overwhelming. But the look behind the scenes reveals something else, analyzes political scientist Marcel Dirsus.
Liberal democracy is under pressure worldwide, a new age of autocracy and dictatorship is feared. But dictators are weaker than is often assumed and democracies are stronger than their enemies claim. This is what Marcel Dirsus, political scientist and author of the book “Like dictators fall”.
T-online: Mr. Dirsus, dictators are considered almost almighty. Does this assessment apply?
Marcel Dirsus: In fact, it is obvious that dictators have a kind of omnipotence. They live in wealth, mostly have showy villas, luxurious cars and a intimidating bodyguard, they can make their opponents disappear with a snapping of fingers. In reality, however, they live a life in fear, they are damn it: uncertainty determines their existence.
Because any sign of the weakness could inevitably lead to the fall of the tyrant?
Dictators are plagued by fear of losing everything – from one moment to the other. This fear never goes by, because the smallest mistakes could take revenge. Although dictators have larger decision -making areas than the leaders of democratic states, they pay a prize: While in functional democracies you need the consent of a large part of the population to achieve and keep power, it is far fewer people in a dictatorial system. However, these people must inevitably be kept happy.
Marcel DirsusBorn in 1990, is a doctorate in political scientists. Dirsus non-resident Fellow is currently at the Institute for Security Policy at the Christian Albrechts University in Kiel and also advises governments, foundations and international organizations such as NATO and OECD. Dirsus is an expert in political violence and irregular change of government, in February 2025 his book was published “How dictators fall – And how Democrats can win“.
What about North Korea in this regard that plays a prominent role in your book “How dictators fall”?
North Korea is a good example. There, the dictator Kim Jong and only needs the support of maybe 100 or 200 families to stay in power. In fact, a real dynasty of dictators has established itself in this country with the Kims, consisting of three men: father, son and grandson. On the one hand, this is an advantage, but can also quickly turn to the opposite: If someone like Kim Jong Un or Vladimir Putin loses the support of a few less, their power can wiggle quickly.
In contrast to the deselection of a democratic politician, stuck dictators threaten harder consequences?
Fallen dictators often end up in prison, in exile or also in the grave. Such fates have suffered more than two thirds of personalist dictators, as examinations show. Those who lose their power often also lose their freedom or even his life.
Now terms such as dictator, autocrat and tyrant are used inflationarily. What makes a dictator a dictator?
I am interested in political systems in which rulers only need a very small part of the population to stay in power. The ruler can be king, president or the head of a military junta, there are very different forms. Not a dictatorship is like the other: Turkmenistan is neither North Korea nor Russia. Russia is not China. But there are still many similarities that result from the structure of the regime and corresponding incentives.
However, no dictator is unlimited, as they said, he is dependent on the support of certain circles: How does he keep these people in check? With sugar bread and whip?
There are various ways to stay in power. Idi Amin in Uganda was extremely brutal, other dictators were very good at exposing their opponents. Josef Stalin was devilishly versed in both disciplines. What do I want to go? When dealing with dictators, it quickly turns out that there are very different characters: Adolf Hitler was notorious for his choleric seizures, Pol Pot showed hardly any emotion. In the long term “successful” dictators must be feared, but exorbitant repression is always risky.
