The Anatomy of Autocracy

We all know average Iranians are so exhausted from living under the fear of their tyrannical and oppressive radical religious regime that they are ready to embrace dramatic change, right? Actually, not right at all.

From the earliest city-states in Mesopotamia to the pharaohs of Egypt, the emperors of Rome and China, the caliphates of the Middle East, Europe’s monarchies, and countless kingdoms across Africa, Asia, and the indigenous Americas, political power has almost exclusively rested in the hands of one ruler or a small elite. Relative to human history, the constitutional democracy, individual liberty, and representative government we enjoy are new and not nearly the norm.

Autocracy has endured because it is remarkably effective at preserving itself.

Autocratic rulers quickly establish order, create an economy they control, build infrastructure, collect taxes, build armies, and administer the hangman’s noose of justice. In return, autocrat leaders reward loyal generals, bureaucrats, judges, business leaders, and political allies with wealth, influence, and security. Over time, those individuals establish careers, have families, and create lives that depend upon the continuation of the existing system. The ruler depends upon them to stay in power, and they depend upon the ruler to preserve their sense of stability.

Every year an autocrat remains in power, another layer of political, military, and economic dependency is added. Eventually, millions of ordinary people become part of the autocratic government’s support structure. Most of these people are not ideological extremists. Like people everywhere, they simply want stability. If one day political change threatens the paycheck that feeds their family, many will reflexively resist that change—even if they privately disagree with their government’s ideology.

Throughout history, people have generally preferred order and predictability over uncertain change. Revolution may promise freedom, but it first threatens economic stability and often fails to deliver that freedom. Families understandably become reluctant to gamble everything they have built on political uncertainty. As an example, historians estimate that 50% of colonial Americans were not convinced at the time that the Revolutionary War with England was the right thing to do.

That preference to go along to get along helps explain why authoritarian governments become increasingly difficult to remove the longer they survive. Iran offers a compelling example.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is not simply a military organization. Over decades it has become deeply embedded throughout the Iranian economy, with interests in construction, telecommunications, energy, transportation, manufacturing, finance, and infrastructure. Millions of Iranians earn their living either directly or indirectly through organizations connected to the state. Even citizens who oppose the government’s ideology may fear the economic collapse that could accompany its sudden removal.

Other rogue nations have similar stories. North Korea has constructed an even more comprehensive system, where the military, the Workers’ Party, and state-owned industries dominate virtually every aspect of economic life. Cuba has relied for decades on an extensive state bureaucracy that provides employment across society. Russia has developed a political economy in which loyalty to the state often determines access to economic opportunity.

As these systems mature, their support infrastructure grows larger every year. Separating the regime from the nation becomes increasingly difficult because so many ordinary citizens have become economically dependent upon its existence.

This creates one of the greatest strategic geopolitical dilemmas facing compassionate Western governments. Our compassion means we prefer diplomacy. But when dealing with long-entrenched authoritarian governments, diplomacy seems only to allow bad actors to keep acting badly.

Authoritarian leaders view diplomacy not as opportunities for reform but as opportunities to buy time, relieve economic pressure, strengthen their institutions, re-strategize, and continue pursuing the very policies that brought them into conflict. In such cases, time itself becomes their greatest ally.

Yet military intervention to “free” these societies from tyranny is hardly the answer. History repeatedly demonstrates that removing a government is often far easier than building a stable replacement. Likewise, economic sanctions can impose hardship without necessarily weakening the ruling elite, since they generally shift the burden onto ordinary citizens.

There are no easy solutions for Western policy.

Perhaps the first step in removing radical autocrats is recognizing that authoritarian governments are not simply dictators surrounded by loyal followers. They are vast economic ecosystems. Meaningful change requires creating a credible alternative that convinces ordinary citizens that their families can enjoy equal to, or better yet, greater security, opportunity, and prosperity under an entirely different political infrastructure. Without that hope, fear of economic collapse easily outweighs the desire for political freedom.

For citizens under despotic rule, the path to freedom is likely full of economic challenge, armed conflict, and personal tragedy. Why trade that out for what, to many accustomed to autocracy, otherwise passes for stability?