Interpreting the Benevolent Dictator

In light of recent political developments in the United States, I thought it was fitting to publish on old essay on leadership, which seems particularly topical now. More specifically, it looks at how autocratic rule forms in unsuspecting environments. The divisiveness found in contemporary political/social spheres in the West are beginning to increasingly mirror historical periods of populist rise.

The twentieth century heralded significant global change and cultural homogenization and was most notably characterized by the two global-scale total wars. This unsettling environment was conducive to numerous totalitarian and repressive leaders coming to power, including Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), Joseph Stalin (1878–1953), and Pol Pot (1925–1998). An estimated 250 million deaths were caused by democide in these dictatorial regimes. It is thus even more remarkable to observe the widespread technological and societal advances that also happened to occur during this period such as poverty reduction, increased life expectancy, and widespread decolonization. Fortunately, the despotism that existed in many political commands in the past two centuries survive only in the most attenuated forms today (e.g. North Korea).

It is a disturbing truth that tyrannical leaders can get into and hold power for a considerable period, while remaining popular among their constituents. Irrespective of their morality and the devastating consequences of their policies, the dictators mentioned were remarkably successful leaders. Moreover, these leaders did not inherit their lawful right to exercise power like a monarch, instead a well-documented rise to power can be observed. Thus, analyzing the traits and behaviours that were necessary to enable this success is a useful undertaking. Of the numerous authoritarians who emerged in the epoch-making twentieth century, Josip Broz — commonly known as Tito — stands as a relatively lesser known figure. Tito was President (later President for Life) of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1953 up until his death in 1980. Although criticized as being authoritarian and having his fair share of detractors, most Yugoslavs regarded him as benevolent dictator. Likewise, Tito had a favourable reputation abroad in both Cold War blocs, amassing some 98 foreign decorations. After his death, he had the largest state funeral in history (since surpassed) with a highly concentrated number of dignitaries representing 128 UN countries. Tito is therefore a very peculiar ruler in that his autocratic command was not as repressive as some of his counterparts at the time but certainly remains undemocratic by today’s standards of freedom and liberty. This idiosyncrasy makes him an ideal figure to apply several well-known leadership frameworks to. This analysis will aim to be principally objective and impartial towards the ideological undertones that inevitably arise from this topic. Hence, this post seeks to decipher how dictators rise to and maintain power through the context of the Tito’s rule in former Yugoslavia.

First, we must briefly establish the necessary historical backdrop by examining the global environment that led to Tito’s tremendous centralized power in Yugoslavia. Born in 1892 in the small Northern Croatian village, Kumrovec, Tito had a modest rural upbringing. Unable to excel in school or apprenticeship, he quickly established himself as a distinguished military man. After getting conscripted into the army in 1913 for World War I, he became the youngest sergeant major. He spent some time in a work camp in the Ural Mountains after getting injured and being captured by the Imperial Russians in the war. He participated in the 1917 Russian Revolution and subsequent civil war before returning to the newly established Kingdom of Yugoslavia. It is most likely during this time spent in Russia where he became fascinated with and eventually indoctrinated with Marxist ideology. He would later go on to enact his own distinct socialist program known as the Illyrian model. It was the events that took place leading up to and during World War II that would really affirm Tito’s stature. In 1941, Axis forces quickly captured the Kingdom of Yugoslavia through sustained heavy attack, with King Peter II and many notable government officials leaving the country. Tito was able to successfully battle the occupation by orchestrating collaboration with the rival monarchic Chetnik movement. Allied leaders eventually began to support Tito’s faction of Partisans as they executed a massive general offensive that forced German troops to retreat from Yugoslavia. During the war in 1944, allied authorities and the government in-exile effectively recognized Tito as Prime Minister of Yugoslavia. Tito’s pro-republic Communist Party of Yugoslavia then effortlessly won the mandated post-war election, given his overwhelming popularity among citizens that saw him as the liberator of Yugoslavia. With this high-level overview, we can now take a more granular look at the basis for Tito’s acceptance as a leader.

To begin, Hogg’s Uncertainty-Identity Theory (UIT) is helpful in explaining support for authoritarian leadership, among other behaviour such as extremism and radicalism. The premise behind UIT is that individuals attempt to reduce feelings of uncertainty about one’s self and identity by aligning themselves with a particular group. More specifically, a well-structured group with clear boundaries, membership criteria, and prescriptive world-views. The directive and explicit leadership that is found in these groups, effectively reduce and reconcile the uncertainty of members. This is further augmented by a defined hierarchy that clearly outlines roles and functions. It is not difficult to envision how feelings of uncertainty, as defined in UIT, and an accentuated thirst for leadership can become rampant in a highly fragmented post-war country like Yugoslavia. Moreover, the multitude of distinct ethnic and religious groups in the area with isolated incidences of ultra-nationalist sentiment further complicated matters. Take Tito himself, who was born to a Croat father and Slovene mother, while being raised as Roman Catholic. Despite his mixed parentage, and higher proficiency in Slovenian, he would often declare himself as a Croat and an atheist in later years. This type of situation was prevalent across Yugoslavia at the time and fueled further uncertainty regarding one’s identity. Tito emerged as a figure that would serve to unite a country that was economically devastated by the war. More importantly, he aimed to suppress nationalist sentiment in favour of tolerance and a common goal. This explains Tito’s decisive electoral victory following the war, even though signs of his tyrannous behaviour would have already been apparent to the neutral observer (e.g. his show trial and execution of Draža Mihailović and controversial imprisonment of several Croatian Catholic clergymen).

Moreover, followership theory can also be useful in explaining the leadership dynamic found during Tito’s rule in Yugoslavia. Although likely not as pertinent as UIT given that it is typically applied in a positive context, we can still borrow many useful conclusions from the literature on the synergetic interchange between the leader and follower. UIT was useful for elucidating Tito’s rise to power, whereas followership theory can help explain how he maintained power for over 30 years. We can classify Tito’s followers (the citizens of Yugoslavia) according to Zaleznik’s typology. He used two axes, dominance–submission and activity–passivity, that resulted in four categories of followers. The reality is that most Yugoslavs could be classified as masochistic subordinates during Tito’s rule. These people willingly and enthusiastically submitted to his authority. This may seem paradoxical; however, it is important to recognize that Yugoslavia actually experienced relative politically stability and strong economic growth up until the 1980’s. Having these complacent and infatuated followers constitute much of the population, enabled him to maintain his authoritarian rule.

Tito was known for his repression of political opponents. However, unlike some of his communist counterparts in the Eastern Bloc, he was far more discreet with these pursuits. He relied on his secret police, the State Security Administration, to act extrajudicially in intimidating middle-class intellectuals and liberals. These victims are classified as impulsive followers. It wasn’t until well after Tito’s death in 1980 did the rise of nationalist rhetoric across all six republics ensue and the fundamental deficiencies of a centrally planned economy begun to manifest. Tito was a highly charismatic leader with the capacity to easily make friends due to his attractive personality. He also stood up to Stalin and his murderous regime. As a result, he was able to keep most citizens in his desired quadrant by maintaining his bona fide persona. With the benefit of hindsight, we can we see why this house of cards collapsed only after his death.

Lastly, Padilla’s toxic triangle is a well-known framework used to describe how destructive leadership arises. As the name implies, there is three key elements in this framework: a destructive leader, susceptible followers, and conducive environment4. First, Tito embodies the charismatic and narcissistic foundations of a destructive leader. His ability to articulate a vision of a utopian Yugoslavia and subsequent threats to these ideals, allowed him to justify consolidating and centralizing power. Admittedly, Tito sparsely employed the negative life themes often found in other destructive leaders. As previously mentioned, his political opponents were often discreetly dealt with. Next, post-war Yugoslavia had the susceptible followers in the form of conformers and colluders to enable a dictator to rise to power. The Chetniks caving into collaborating with the Partisans, even though they had opposite ideological views, is an exemplar of the conformer paradigm. These royalists and nationalists felt as if they eventually had no other choice but to give in to Tito’s command to fend off the Axis attacks. On the other end, there was no shortage of colluders as Marxism became increasingly popular in Eastern Europe at the time; ergo, these followers shared similar world-views and ambitions as Tito. Finally, the conducive environment is arguably the most discernable component of the toxic triangle. The post-war setting created instability and perceived threats still loomed large. Additionally, there were no real checks and balances in place as Tito’s Partisans became the de facto government after the Kingdom of Yugoslavia crumbled due to German invasion.

A reoccurring theme observed throughout all the frameworks is how most followers are only able to identity despotic rule retrospectively. In the late 1980s, only years after Tito’s death, did the number of proselytized and withdrawn followers begin to severely diminish. This is arguably the most important insight drawn as it is particularly relevant to the contemporary political climate in the Western world. With socialism back in vogue in America, and the rise of populism across the political spectrum being observed globally, we are nearing a key inflection point during this apparent moral crisis. Niccolò Machiavelli, the prominent Renaissance philosopher and humanist aptly said, “How by the delusions of seeming good the people are often misled to desire their own ruin; and how they are frequently influenced by great hopes and brave promises.” Dating back to the fall of the Athenian Empire in Ancient Greece up until today, it seems that society has yet to truly grasp this timeless doctrine. People should think twice before voting for candidates deceptively offering these bold policies and invocations of high moral values, as they are often the perfect recipe for political and human tragedy.

Related posts:

My one bedroom apartment in Manhattan is in the quaint yet convenient West Village neighborhood downtown. My home is also the size of my mom’s kitchen in the suburbs, but that’s another story. I live…

UltraMixer is a professional DJ software package that also offers a free trial version for Mac and Windows users. UltraMixer provides full control over audio, video, and image files, and lets you mix…

Yang paling sering dibahas oleh pemula Upwork adalah bagaimana caranya pecah telor dapat client atau order pertama dan membuat profile Upwok yang menarik