EBP- process of establishing personal rule (Stalin)

The Politics of Authoritarian Rule- process of establishing personal rule.

This reading touches base on the significant steps taken by dictators to use and manipulate power and establish personal rule/autocracy. It also discusses the hurdles rebellions have to overcome while acting as a deterrent to the rise of Dictators. While focusing mainly on the rise of Stalin, it takes a range of data from different authoritarian examples and combines them to paint the groundings of personal rule.

The line that differentiates democracy from authoritarian rule is the seizing or the usurping of power, who has the ability to do so? In the case of democracies, a collective group of people (majority) if not satisfied with the ruling body has the ability to take control (although this might not be as simple as it sounds) through elections and such, on the other hand in authoritarian rule, “power is usurped by a single person”. This explanation in a general understanding is a simple but vague description to distinguish the two sides, democracy and authoritarian governments.

Svolik talks about a process he called authoritarian power-sharing, where the spoils of authoritarian rule is shared amongst the dictator and his allies, and how the failure of this process can lead to the establishment of personal rule. He outlined that all dictatorships exist in an environment that lacked an independent authority that enforces mutual agreements. The death of Lenin was followed by a power struggle between those who were next in line, Stalin knew this and took advantage of it, before he engaged in establishing his personal rule, he had to remove all those who contended his power. At the end of each power grab move Stalin took, the rest of those who had some form of power fell in line with his regime and in the beginning it felt like an agreement between allies, this is where we see the workings of the process called power-sharing. Stalin personally conditioned the platform for his rule, because Russia did not have an arbiter to mediate the conflicts, all disputes were handled informally usually through the use of violence, and this worked out for Stalin, he purged the leaders of the government, the people and military generals and basically anyone who he did not trust or was in the way. This is the downfall of power-sharing, the relationship between the Dictator and his allies’ changes over time depending on the scale that is balanced by power, and wherever there is more power has the upper hand, almost always the Dictator wins and acquires unlimited authority over all. In the end, Svolik hints that no dictatorships are the same and that the unpredictability of its natures blurs the line between the definitions and comparisons between each example.

This unpredictability he continues is the reason it is hard to find a proper deterrent for Dictatorships, it seems as it’s a battle between two opposing sides on an uneven playing field where the rebellion  mostly fails. Look at it this way, the rebellion have to oppose the side with absolute power, all the state resources, and at the same time has to continue to fuel the support of its members while the Dictator only has to give commands of his choosing. Svolik first sets the idea of an internal opposition or allied rebellion, as occurring from an idle imbalance of power, and this imbalance either makes it difficult for a rebellion to succeed, as well as the discouragement of any rebellion to form. In the case of Stalin, there was hardly any opposition after he established his rule.

Stalin is to this day a marvel to the study of authoritarianism, maybe because of the odds he had to face during the start of his regime or the ruthlessness of his actions. Svolik explores the more technical side of how he came to power, the timing and the patience he had as well as the luck that brought all the events together to enable him to enforce his rule. His personality from the beginning and his obscurity that allowed him to attain power without alerting the other leaders, these are all fundamental qualities shared amongst similar individuals who have ever established personal rule. I may seem to have gone too deep into the Russian history of affairs during the Stalin regime, but this was the focal point of what Svolik ventured into. His definitions at times were slightly vague but he was clear on one thing, the transition from collective to personal rule is rare because of the numerous factors that have to align together in order for it to work. After going through this reading, it makes me question how at this time when Democracy was spreading like wildfire across the globe especially with the heightened pace of globalization, how did Stalin manage to protect the state from contradicting outside influences? And thus how did he manage to stabilize and command the legitimacy of the multinational, multi-ethnic united Soviet project under his leadership? The points Svolik defines and discusses are pretty clear, but I think it could have had a little more on how Stalin maintained his personal rule and how he ruled uncontested until his death.

Sources.

Svolik, M. (2012). The Politics of Authoritarian Rule (Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139176040 pp. 53-63. (Process of establishing personal rule)