When the term “dictatorship” is used as a concept describing a power situation or a form of rule, it is often replaced by the institutional concept of a “dictatorial regime,” and discussed as a form of political system. In a dictatorial regime, the power structure, as a comprehensive organization for maintaining stable rule, likely encompasses and regulates all aspects of society, including institutions, personal freedoms, and culture, in order to secure widespread obedience within society.
In short, dictatorship can be understood as both a situational and institutional concept of a system of governance where power is concentrated in the hands of an individual or a small group.
Aristotle, focusing on the virtues and number of rulers in a system of governance, categorized them from fewest to most rulers as monarchy, aristocracy, polity, tyrannos (usurped the sovereignty), oligarchy, and democracy, and considered monarchy and tyrannos as forms of dictatorship.
The term “tyrannos” refers to a general term for rulers who, from around the 7th century BC to the 3rd century BC, seized power through illegal means and established dictatorships in the ancient Greek city-states (polis). These tyrants are said to have confiscated land from the aristocracy and distributed it to poor farmers, provided loans, improved the economic status of lower-class farmers, promoted commerce and industry, established colonies, actively engaged in civil engineering and construction projects, and supported poets and artists.
However, during the transition to democracy, they sometimes played the role of leaders of the people through skillful policies and contributed to the development of the polis, but their primary focus was considered to be the maintenance of their own power.
During the Roman Republic, which is considered to have maintained a democratic political system, a form of delegated dictatorship (also known as constitutional dictatorship) was adopted, where a democratically elected individual, with the approval of the people, held absolute power. When national emergencies such as war were anticipated, and decision-making by the usual two or more consuls would be too slow, a dictator was appointed and granted all administrative powers for a six-month term. However, it is said that this office subsequently led to the emergence of lifelong dictatorships under figures like Sulla and Caesar, ultimately resulting in the collapse of the republic itself.
In post-World War I Germany, Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution stipulated that the president could exercise emergency powers to temporarily suspend all or part of fundamental human rights if public safety and order were significantly threatened. However, the effectiveness of this power was limited, and the political situation was extremely unstable.
It was in this context that Carl Schmitt (1888-1985), a legal advisor to the Nazi Party, developed a theory of dictatorship. He argued that the form and means of power to overcome specific problems in a state of exception (Ausnahmezustand) were nothing less than dictatorship. He distinguished dictatorship from mere tyranny, defining it as a means to achieve a specific purpose. He justified dictatorship by arguing that the president, through emergency powers, could disregard the law in order to realize the law—that is, the essence of dictatorship lies in the general possibility of separating legal norms from the norms of legal realization. He categorized forms of dictatorial power into delegated dictatorship (Kommissarische) and sovereign dictatorship (Souveräne), and the Nazi Party led by Hitler adopted the delegated dictatorship model. (ref.: Dictatorship, Die Diktatur, 1921)
1. Delegated Dictatorship (Kommissarische)
* Temporarily suspends the law, but the constitution remains as a premise.
* Purpose: Restoration of constitutional order. * Example: Emergency dictator of the Roman Republic.
2. Sovereign Dictatorship (Souveräne)
* Suspends the old constitution and determines fundamental norms.
* Purpose: Creation of a new constitutional order.
* Examples: The Jacobins during the French Revolution, political systems that emerge after military coups, etc.
On the other hand, some theories distinguish dictatorship as a form of government that seizes political power through the use of force, such as military power, and lacks legitimacy and legality, categorizing it as follows:
* Simple Dictatorship:
A small group controls the means of oppression, such as the military, police, bureaucracy, and judiciary.
* Caesarist Dictatorship:
In addition to simple dictatorship, it involves the charismatic control of the masses.
* Totalitarian Dictatorship:
It is Caesarist in nature and directly controls the private lives of citizens.
In any case, the structural vulnerability of a dictatorship lies in the possibility that even a slight lapse in vigilance could lead to a military coup or a rebellion that topples the ruling class, forcing the dictator to press forward without turning back. Moreover, to strengthen their dictatorial rule and push it to its ultimate, limitless extreme, dictators perpetuate revolutionary reforms using tactics that appeal to anxiety and fear, and ruthlessly suppress or eliminate opposition forces and scapegoats, even through brutal means. Therefore, dictators typically organize the military, police, other security forces, and media to be directly subordinate to them, allowing them to issue direct orders.
This concentration of power establishes a foundation for maintaining control, and through the suppression of anti-government activities and freedom of speech by secret police and the military, it prevents opposition groups from acting independently, ultimately leading to the suppression of dissent and resistance. Furthermore, by positioning themselves as national symbols through propaganda and the media, dictators exert powerful influence and demand loyalty from the people, thereby solidifying their power.
Moreover, dictators skillfully utilize international relations, deftly deflecting domestic and international criticism and pressure, and cleverly engaging in negotiations or creating external enemies to further strengthen their rule.
Apart from the above-mentioned dictatorship as a means and method of exercising power by the ruling class, there are also dictatorships that arise as a phenomenon based on distortions and conflicts between the social structure and the established system.
* Classical Dictatorship:
Arises from movements of emerging ruling classes resisting the rule of traditional monarchs and aristocrats during periods of economic prosperity.
e.g., Caesar, Cromwell, Napoleon, etc.
* Ultra-Revolutionary Dictatorship:
A mass uprising aiming for social revolution against the hierarchical structure of industrial society.
e.g., the Jacobins and Bolsheviks, etc.
* Counter-Revolutionary Dictatorship:
Arises from the ruling class as a countermeasure to classical dictatorship.
e.g., Sulla and Franco, etc.
* Pseudo-Revolutionary Dictatorship:
A pseudo-fascist or Nazi-type dictatorship organized by the middle class seeking to maintain the benefits from the ruling class or traditional way of life in order to counter the threat of ultra-revolutionary dictatorship.
In any case, dictatorship is the concentration of power in the hands of one person or a minority group, and in a one-party dictatorial regime, even in a country where leaders are elected through a democratic process, civil society and political society are separated, and citizen participation in politics is not permitted.
In the past, inflation rates have surged due to significant supply shortages caused by imbalances in supply and demand, or, as in the case of Germany after World War I, hyperinflation has resulted from financial panic despite the availability of goods, leading to severe hardship for the population and ultimately leading to dictatorship.
The virus turmoil since 2019 has served as a comprehensive simulation exercise for the rulers, testing their defense and emergency response capabilities and speed, as well as the effectiveness of social manipulation tactics. It exposed the limitations and delays caused by constitutional constraints, and since the schemes based on the malicious intentions of the rulers did not function effectively, it seems that many countries are now proceeding with amendments to their constitutions to allow for a legitimate and rapid transition to a dictatorial regime through emergency clauses and constitutional reforms.
Currently, there is a trend in many regions towards a simultaneous transition to totalitarian dictatorships through methods such as intentionally suppressing and socially excluding individuals using digital IDs and social credit scoring systems, and enforcing obedience among the population through the implementation of emergency laws.
Furthermore, it is estimated that there are currently over 22,000 companies belonging to the military-industrial complex, and many of them were involved in previous dictatorial regimes and continue to operate even after the end of wars. This means that a true end to conflict is unlikely, and a new war could be started at any time depending on the decisions of the rulers.
Under a dictatorial regime, some democratic systems, such as a parliament, may be retained to identify, suppress, and control opposition forces. However, in a totalitarian and authoritarian manner, political rights and human rights are suppressed or denied to control individuals, forcing ordinary citizens to submit to what is effectively a hegemonic ruling system. Furthermore, in this situation, social classes that had previously benefited from the old system might further contribute to social decay by currying favor with the dictatorship in an attempt to regain their former privileged positions.
Even under the ideology of democracy, where decision-making is supposedly based on competitive elections with multiple political parties, it is possible to maintain a dictatorial system of control. Through voting conducted under the guise of freedom and equality, or through fraudulent elections, a particular party could gain most of the seats, concentrate power, and systematically pass any legislation in parliament based on its dictatorial intentions.
It was Mussolini in 1920 who defined fascism as a one-party state ruled by a dictator with absolute power. Since the essence of fascism is considered to be territorial conquest through violence and imperialistic rule, it is organized on the premise of using violence, and ordinary citizens are incited to be vigilant, forced to inform on others, and trained to use violence.
As a reference for understanding the common characteristics and traits of dictators and tyrants, one can refer to Niccolò Machiavelli’s (1469-1527) *The Prince*, which is the origin of the term Machiavellianism, known for the principle that “the end justifies the means.”
* Narcissistic, only caring about themselves, and enjoying being the center of attention and being worshipped.
* Charismatic, skilled at acting and eloquent in speeches.
They frequently hold rallies as opportunities to indulge in their own performance and receive praise, encouraging loyalty and enjoying adulation from the masses.
* Willing to do anything to maintain power and achieve their goals, regardless of the means.
* Tendency towards paranoia, building an inner sanctuary.
* Only trusting their inner circle and relatives as advisors, and not trusting anyone else.
* Obsessed with self-praising propaganda, living in a world of fiction, and becoming unable to make sound judgments.
* Lacking moral norms and forming alliances with anyone.
* Desiring ever greater power, wealth, control, and dominance.
* Prioritizing profit and loss above all else, readily cooperating for their own self-interest, but ignoring others’ difficulties if there is no benefit to themselves.
* Not hesitating to shift blame to others for self-preservation.
* Highly observant in order to manipulate and utilize others by catering to their moods.
In any case, whether it is a dictatorial or democratic regime, seizing power and maintaining that power is a fundamental principle essential for the survival of the regime, and the means and tactics employed will vary depending on the form, size, and nature of the support base (general voters, regime supporters, allies, close associates, etc.).
According to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804, ref. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, 1795), under a democratic system of government, even if one person voices dissent, it is ignored and treated as unanimous consent, and decisions are made as if by everyone, even though not everyone agrees. Therefore, democracy can inevitably lead to tyranny.
Furthermore, Kant argued that the lack of representative government in governance, as seen in ancient republics, could lead to a transition to tyranny in any political system, and could also become violent. Among these forms of tyranny, the one where sovereignty is held by a single person is the most unbearable situation, namely, dictatorship.
A characteristic of dictators in authoritarian regimes is that they emerge as charismatic leaders aiming to seize power, and while secretly employing various Machiavellian tactics and unscrupulous methods to achieve their goals, they often seize power through seemingly legitimate processes on the surface. They are also considered highly likely to possess personality traits associated with the dark triad.
Dictators possessing the personality traits known as the Dark Triad, which consists of three elements, may have factors that contribute to their success, such as strong self-esteem, extroversion, and a willingness to embrace new challenges, but these traits can also cause aversion and suffering to others.
In addition, the hostile emotions incited by political leaders with these dark personality traits, such as the Dark Triad, tend to garner enthusiastic support from those with aggressive tendencies. This further promotes emotional polarization in society, contaminates public discourse, weakens the will for public cooperation and social cohesion, and ultimately erodes democratic norms.
1. Narcissist:
They have a very strong sense of self-love and a strong need for self-affirmation, and due to their self-centered tendencies, they often disregard the feelings and thoughts of others and adopt an arrogant attitude. However, they also tend to have high self-esteem and a strong mental fortitude, actively engaging in new challenges and building confidence through repeated successes, which is said to attract further success.
2. Machiavellian:
They tend to use any means necessary to achieve their goals, possessing strong skills such as high calculation ability and problem-solving skills. They view others as mere tools, and have no qualms about deceiving and pursuing their own self-interest.
3. Psychopath:
Characterized by a complete lack of emotions such as joy, anger, and sadness, and a lack of empathy, they may engage in ruthless behavior, leading to antisocial actions. Due to a lack of guilt towards others, they have no hesitation in disregarding and hurting the feelings of others. On the other hand, their actions are not impulsive but planned, and they may use skillful language and feign politeness, making them appear as charming individuals.
Psychopathy overlaps with Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), but they are not entirely identical. Psychopaths are broadly classified into three types based on their characteristic behavioral patterns:
* Dominant Psychopath:
They play the role of a good person to win people over, and thoroughly control and exploit others for their own benefit. They also engage in extremely cruel power harassment against those who threaten their position, using their power, imposing unreasonable demands, and hurling insults.
* Parasitic Psychopath:
Like a parasite, they latch onto others for their own benefit, thoroughly exploiting them and considering it their right to do so. Even if they are the cause of the trouble, they refuse to admit fault and are irresponsible. Their common tactics for exploiting others include acting in ways that elicit sympathy, such as telling sob stories or feigning tears.
* Violent Psychopath:
They are highly aggressive and impulsively attack others at the slightest provocation.
While some psychopaths may engage in pleasure killings like those depicted in movies, violent crime is not considered a necessary characteristic of psychopathy, and many psychopaths do not commit such crimes, with some even achieving success as politicians.
Throughout world history, there are numerous examples of these psychopaths initially using their outward persona to work for the benefit of society and contribute to the public good, only to transform into their true, darker selves and rule as dictators once they seize power. Examples include Emperor Nero, the fifth emperor of Rome, and Louis XIV, among others.
Even in modern times, it can be observed that some heads of state or presidents exhibiting psychopathic traits—such as social influence, fearlessness, stress tolerance, egocentrism, lack of empathy, rebelliousness, irresponsibility, and ruthlessness—behave not as democratic leaders, but rather like medieval kings or deified emperors, treating national borders as their personal property, alliances as subservient vassals, and rewriting laws according to their own whims and emotions.
The emergence of such psychopaths as dictators is undoubtedly influenced by personal characteristics, but it also appears to be causally linked to social structures and conditions.
1. Simplification of social anxiety:
As uncertainty increases, people fall into a psychological state where they cannot tolerate understanding complex realities as they are, and instead yearn for a strong leader who can simplify problems by reframing them into narratives of good versus evil.
2. Theatricalization of governance:
Policy debates and the mechanisms of governance are transformed into a reality show format to attract attention, incorporating short slogans, numerous enemies, and simple conclusions into the narrative, intentionally optimized to foster social conformity.
3. Erosion of deterrent capabilities:
This involves tactics to strengthen the authoritarian regime, such as dividing and rendering society and parliament dysfunctional, applying political pressure to control the judiciary, inciting loyalty among bureaucrats, controlling the media, and disregarding academia and intellectuals.
In any case, it can be said that manipulation, modification, and attacks on psychological aspects and forms of control are being carried out on multiple levels, affecting social, political, and strategic aspects. Furthermore, these tactics and attacks seem to be focused on moral emotions and cognitive biases—which are fundamental aspects of human nature essential for survival—and appear to be deliberately aimed at their destruction.
Humankind, in order to increase its survival rate, created a system of cooperation mediated by reputation through oral communication and other means, and the moral emotions that lead to altruistic behavior are considered to be what they developed to maintain this system. It is also said that such good deeds eventually benefit oneself, leading to what is called indirect reciprocity. Through this mechanism, humans developed the ability to infer causality and gained a sensitivity to injustice, triggering moral emotions that compel them to punish wrongdoing even if they are not directly harmed.
When moral emotions are strongly activated, cognitive biases arise, leading to the perception of causality where none exists, and sometimes even causing tragedies. By manipulating these cognitive biases based on moral emotions of indirect reciprocity, those seeking dictatorship may lead people’s minds towards the tragic end of a malicious narrative.
The personality of a psychopathic dictator—who intensely displays narcissism, constantly seeks admiration, lacks empathy, is exploitative, arrogant, and full of ambition and self-confidence—can become irresistibly attractive to exhausted, weakened, and vulnerable ordinary people, leading them to submission.
On the other hand, in the system of indirect reciprocity that sustains human society, where good deeds are rewarded with reputation and bad deeds are punished, a psychopathic dictator, lacking fear and having an extremely dull sense of danger, becomes uncontrollable, abnormally craving and pursuing only reputation. Their fondness for discussions of exorbitant rewards and expenditures can be seen as a manifestation of quantifying reputation and a sensory desire for possession.
Furthermore, the tendency of psychopathic dictators with an extremely poor sense of risk to make grandiose claims and engage in deceptive actions and statements without hesitation can create an aura of charisma, easily attracting and deceiving those who lack critical thinking skills, making them susceptible to manipulation and exploitation.
Adam Smith (1723-1790, ref. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759) argued that while humans rarely empathize with the pain of others, they do empathize with fear. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the moment and nature of fear, people tend to feel increasingly anxious, which further amplifies this empathy. Psychopathic dictators, lacking empathy and fear themselves, skillfully exploit this tendency to identify and brutally suppress opposing forces and resistance.
Incidentally, please also refer to my previous related blog posts, including those discussing the utilization of universal elements.
On January 8, 2026, POTUS stated, “I don’t need international law. The only thing that can stop me is my own morality,” that lays out a vision of power restrained only by his own morality.
This implies that treaties and institutions are not very important, prioritizing ownership through power, and that international law would only apply if he so decided, not being bound by judicial bodies or the legislature, but rather by his own moral code as the sole limitation.
Since dictatorial regimes are built upon the concentration of power in one person, the arbitrary treatment of existing laws, strict governance through structural changes using force and decrees, and de facto authoritarian actions, mere rhetoric alone may not be sufficient to define someone as a dictator.
However, although a full-blown dictatorial regime has not yet been established, given that de facto operations to seize crude oil, natural resources, minerals, and territory are underway, as well as the statements regarding making decisions while bypassing parliament, a worldview that treats power as self-justifying and considers individual morality as the only limit can at least be considered dictatorial or indicative of dictatorial tendencies.
While dictatorships may seem appealing in some ways due to their clear vision, lofty ideals, rapid decision-making, and efficiency, they are considered highly susceptible to cognitive biases. On the other hand, democracy is a product of compromise and does not reflect the views of any single individual, but its inherent ambiguity makes it less prone to cognitive biases. This slight advantage is sometimes cited as the reason why democracy has survived the struggle for existence.
In any case, it is believed that the higher the degree of personality traits such as excessive self-centeredness (narcissism), lack of empathy (psychopathy), and tendencies toward manipulation and deception (Machiavellianism) exhibited by dictatorial regimes, the stronger the hostility towards political opponents among their supporters, leading to social and emotional polarization.
In Kant’s ethical system, a structural characteristic can be observed where a subject without emotions, or even better without them, can fully practice morality, giving the impression that psychopaths have an advantage over mentally healthy individuals.
This is because, while ordinary people usually understand good in connection with emotions and discuss morality based on feelings such as sympathy, empathy, self-sacrifice, and love, Kant excluded emotions from the source of moral value, instead placing self-legislation through reason, the concept of duty, and the criterion of universalizability. Kant, seeking universal principles of action guided by reason regardless of the presence or absence of emotions, separated emotions from moral value because sympathy contains accidental and unstable emotional elements.
In other words, by freeing morality from the arbitrariness of being governed by specific emotions, pursuing universality, and basing it on moral equality, it may become difficult to deny the idea that this is an ethical system that even psychopaths, who are considered to lack empathy, can practice.
For the ideal of embodying oneself as a rational, independent, and autonomous subject, the moral law is universally recognized as the common ultimate rule, and following this rule, which is an unconditional command, is a moral duty. However, instead of excluding or treating one as secondary in order to secure universality—such as autonomy and dependence, universality and specificity, reason and emotion—both should be considered essential elements in building humanity, coexistence, and a harmonious society.
Adam Smith identified empathy as the source of morality, arguing that the ability to understand and feel the emotions and circumstances of others forms the basis of social morality, allowing us to judge the rightness or wrongness of actions. He believed that a moral individual is formed through the power of self-control, acting as an inner impartial observer to objectively view one’s own actions, and that this individual morality permeates society, leading to overall social harmony.
Numerous historical events serve as cautionary tales, demonstrating how politicians and political regimes with narcissistic, psychopathic, and Machiavellian personality traits have incited hostile ideologies, reinforced emotional divisions among the populace, and promoted social polarization, ultimately leading to devastating consequences.
To reiterate, in the current situation, it is crucial for society as a whole to respond cautiously, based on inherent human morality, to the actions of dictators and populists who are polluting public discourse, weakening public cooperation and social cohesion, eroding democratic norms, engaging in internal and external interference and aggression, and plundering natural resources and minerals.
Sincerely grateful for your financial support.
Sources and references:
The Theory of Moral Sentiments
‘I don’t need international law’: Trump says power constrained only by ‘my own morality’
