What makes autocrats so attractive to people? I've been asking myself this question for a few days. Last Monday evening I walked past an inn on the way home. It was already dark and a cold wind was blowing through the streets. Light rain, whose cold drops felt like small pinpricks on the skin, completed the autumnal scenario.

___STEADY_PAYWALL___

A small group of people stood in front of the door of the inn. Smoking break. The mercilessly unpleasant weather didn't bother her. They talked about politics. As I walked past, I heard the sentence quite clearly: “No matter what they all say, I think Orban is great!” The people standing by agreed with a more or less loud “yes”. But it scared me. Orban great? A man who acts as an autocrat in Europe?

That still gives me pause to this day. Orban. Of all things. A man who has been putting his own country's free media under pressure for years . Who displays racist mindset An autocrat who is gradually dismantling his country's democracy . It is precisely this man that the group in front of the inn pays great respect to. No matter what people say. According to the current Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI), Hungary itself is not considered an autocracy, but is considered a defective democracy . However, there is a tendency towards the dismantling of democracy.

I wonder what motivates people to want autocrats and, in return, accept a restriction of their basic rights. Because that is exactly what happens in autocracies. In autocracies there is a measurable restriction on freedom of expression and assembly, a standardization of the media and, moreover, the constant creation of enemy images (usually smaller and defenseless social groups), which are persecuted accordingly.

But apparently there must be some stimulus that autocrats trigger. Or maybe it's simply propaganda that is deliberately spread and has an effect on people. Or ultimately the supposed failure of our own free democratic social system in times of crisis?

Democracy is the worst of all forms of government

“Democracy is the worst of all forms of government - apart from all the other forms that have been tried from time to time.” This sentence comes from Winston Churchill, who uttered it in a speech to the House of Commons on November 11, 1947. Churchill or not, I can underline the statement.

A democracy can never be perfect. It is based on social compromises, solidarity and mutual consideration. Protection of minorities, development of everyone with respect for others, but also basic rights that apply to all people. Nobody is above the law, the law does not obey politics, but politics, the executive and also the judiciary follow the law. A democratic society with functioning basic laws protects the freedom of all people who live in the respective country.

Of course, this can sometimes be tedious and can cause frustration or even paralyze a society. This frustration can arise particularly in times of crisis, as crises generally cause internal tensions. We have been observing this for years now, the corona pandemic

has shown us all what has previously only been described theoretically. Furthermore, we are only at the beginning, as war, the energy crisis, rapidly rising prices and climate change will cause further tensions.

Can a democracy endure that? I don't know, but she has to. Because what are the alternatives?

Crises: The dream of populists and autocrats!

Crises are a problem for democracies, but welcome events for populists and autocrats. This is neither a new nor a stunning finding. We also find plenty of examples of (right-wing) populists wishing for crises in order to strengthen their form of destructive politics ( most recent example HERE ).

Whether it's refugees coming to Central Europe, the energy crisis or the corona pandemic: populists paint images of enemies in crises and break down complex problems to falsely simplified levels. With accusations, anger and the corresponding enemy images, populists connect with the middle of society and hope to gain power in order to ultimately get into a ruling position of power themselves.

It's easier for autocrats. They no longer need to get into a position of governing power because they are already there. However, you need to consolidate and expand this position. However, this only works if they become more and more radical. Increasing synchronization of media and culture, ever new enemy images, ever greater pressure on society so that no critical voices emerge.

In times of crisis, this process may even be easier. To use the Orban example again: since March 2020, Viktor Orban has been allowed to rule Hungary by decree ! Hungary's parliament passed a corresponding law due to the newly ignited corona pandemic. And before this decree could expire, Orban quickly used the next crisis as an opportunity for another decree. A state of emergency has been in effect in Hungary since May 2022 due to the war in Ukraine . This means that Orban essentially remains an autocrat who could extend his term of government at any time with the next decree.

Why do people want autocrats like Orban? Let's look back!

Nevertheless, even in democratic systems, autocrats enjoy great support from many people. The Hungarian head of government is basically a good example of how it works and why people trust Orban so much in Hungary. For this purpose we have worked with HS-Prof. MMag. Claus Oberhauser from the University of Innsbruck spoke.

In Oberhauser's eyes, Orban implemented a brilliant advertising strategy. He managed to portray “foreign” enemies as the great threat to Hungarian democracy using the enemy image “George Soros”. This means that he himself is seen as the protector of the people's values ​​(including families and campaigns regarding children), while the others want to change “us”. So the classic structure of the contrasting fronts “them” and “we”. At the same time, says Oberhauser, Orban is telling the old story of master and servant and turning it on its head: the indomitable Hungary against the evil “foreign” agitators.

These are typical strategies that autocrats use to gain power, but also to maintain and consolidate their power. The current crises have a supportive effect. Oberhauser calls here a neo-nationalism that emerged in the current crises. The more international and cosmopolitan things are questioned, the more likely it is that right-wing populists in Central Europe (this is not the case in South America) will reject the values ​​of the other two groups.

That's why Orban proclaimed illiberal democracy. In this context, the “decline of male white Europe” also has an effect on the meta level. This scenario is probably more serious for many people than one might initially assume: the latent fear of plural societies seems to be deeply rooted. Orban is a rock in the surf here.

Historically, periods of major upheaval are often times in which there is a call for the “strong” man. One would be amazed at how often this demand was already made in German-speaking countries before Hitler came to power. The call for the “strong” man stands for simple answers to complex questions. These questions are of course asked more frequently in times of crisis: As I said, this was a highly frequented subject, especially after the First World War.

What drives people to desire autocrats?

The desire for an autocrat more or less consciously carries an anti-democratic thought pattern. In order to shed more light on these patterns, we also spoke to the psychologist and psychotherapist Mag. Ulrike Schiesser.

The observation that in times of uncertainty and fear, authoritarian leadership styles and charismatic authoritarian leaders are particularly well received is almost self-explanatory, says Schiesser. The higher the stress, the more willing you are to throw your own values ​​overboard and only ensure your own survival. When there are real dangers, leadership and direction really make sense. Rescue and fire services, for example, are also organized in very authoritarian command structures. In the event of a disaster, no one wants to have to undergo complex, grassroots decision-making beforehand.  

Anti-democratic leaders find it easier to divide the world into simple friend/enemy images and to promise solutions and security that they cannot actually deliver, says Schiesser. The illusion of decisiveness and competence, the self-confident appearance is seductive. They have fewer scruples about promising salvation to the people of a country. Democracy is not something you have, but something that has to be done over and over again, and that is always a challenge and an imposition. Dictatorship represents the simple solution. While it's a bold assumption, one can speculate that anyone who flirts with autocracy also assumes they're on the winning side.

A rather interesting observation about autocracies is that in the present, compared to the past, they rarely use violence, but rather use disinformation and try to look like democrats. Conspiracy theories are created top down, as a tool of the oppressor, not the oppressed.  

The simplicity of trading in the complex situation

I now understand the people who stood in front of the inn and paid their respects to Orban. Not that I share that respect. No, I understand your reasoning. It's about assertiveness while acting simply. It is the old image of the “doer” who simply does things in the face of a complex social “theorist” system. The doer always gets the sympathy.

At the same time, there is the assumption that if a “doer” came to power in your own country, you would always be positively affected. But this thesis, if we look into the past or into autocratic systems, does not necessarily prove to be true. Someone is always portrayed as an enemy.

This might also be of interest : Braunschweig: Schools are heated. Yes, consumers are currently encouraged to save energy, but children in a Braunschweig school don't have to freeze because of it. A letter from a secondary school about the heating being switched off is not true. Continue reading …

Cover image by Tibor Janosi Mozes on Pixabay


Note: This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication
.
The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic.