There are three tested ways to undermine an autocrat according to Gene Sharp, the author of a playbook for combating dictators and all autocrats. “I would rather have this book than the nuclear bomb”, a former Lithuanian defense minister once said. However, despite the fact that Gene Sharp was a U.S. scholar, his works are relatively unknown in his homeland – his books, emphasizing that non-violent protests can become contagious, have been translated into at least 34 languages and have been used successfully around the world. Sharp’s mantra is that “Dictators are never as strong as they tell you they are, and people are never as weak as they think they are”. Perhaps we, in the United States, have never needed to pay as much attention to Sharp as we need to at this moment – his books should immediately go back into print, and should be distributed by the U.S. Democratic Party; the democrats certainly need all the help they can get. By the way, the picture above is Julius Ceasar, who out-maneuvered all his opponents to turn a democracy into his own dictatorship and we are following almost exactly the same playbook.!
Sharp maintains that appeals to democratic values are abstract arguments, and not terribly effective; an idea he gleans from the practical experience of anti-authoritarian movements around the world. He cites three approaches that have proved far more effective: (1) Mockery and humor – preferably salacious; (2) Highlighting the autocrat’s corruption, hypocrisy, and economic mismanagement; and (3) Focus on the power of “one”. I should perhaps add that these are simple ideas that everyone can understand, and everyone can participate in – appealing to constitutional crises, democratic principles and the rule of law simply go right over the heads of the majority of the electorate – unfortunate, maybe, but true.
Humor puts autocrats in a difficult position. They look ridiculous if they crack down on jokes but look weak if they ignore them. An example is Xi Jinping of China. He is often mocked for resembling Winnie-the-Pooh. So, China banned Pooh bear images and movies – giving people more reason to laugh at him. Winnie-the-Pooh will not bring down Xi, but such an approach did bring down Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia in 2000.
The one common fragility of all autocrats is their enormous egos, and that is their vulnerability – it needs full exploitation, and the more ridiculous the better. I would suspect that underlying that ego sensitivity is a deep-seated fear that someone will take their toys away! I would add that Trump seems particularly vulnerable to this approach, which was demonstrated this week by his rant-reaction to the title of “TACO” (Trump Always Chicken’s Out), a description given to him by a Financial Times reporter relating to his multiple tariff reversals.
Highlighting the autocrat’s corruption, hypocrisy, and economic mismanagement is generally the easy one, both to understand and to implement. Again, it is a common trait of all dictators, but this one needs the active participation of the institutions of opposition, such as the U.S. Democratic Party, the universities and, in particular, the opposition media. They can’t lose their nerve and buckle to the inevitable intimidation and lies that the autocrat will throw at them. They need to be relentless, and spread the word as widely as possible. The media is the most important element here, and they have to stand up and be counted on the one element they always scream about – that is, freedom of the press – especially when they are under great pressure to cave in to the dictator in question.
The power of “one” needs a little explanation: Basically, it means using examples of individual tragedies not global ones. It is too easy for the masses to ignore major events no matter how terrible they may be, but the plight of an individual, preferably a child, has far more impact. Currently, the media are doing a good job with this approach in the war in Gaza, but the same method can be used in the war against autocracy – the U.S. media have not yet woken up to this possibility, or they feel it is beneath them, or likely to bring retribution down on their heads – as I said, time to stand up and be counted!
Sharp states that we often think of politicians as the natural leaders of such approaches, but it is striking how often the stars of these types of movement have come from other spheres of life. Also, politicians are often either complicit with the dictator or too busy covering their own asses and positions to be willing to stand up and be counted. Unfortunately, this means we may have to look for “sacrificial lambs”, because the retribution from the dictator will be swift and brutal. I was pleasantly surprised by the recent public statements coming from the Illinois Governor, JB Pritzger, in this regard – there appears to be hope!
There is no simple formula for success in challenging dictators, and there are certainly dangers at an individual, or even corporate, level. However, such approaches have enjoyed a surprising record of success around the world and there is no reason to think they couldn’t work well, and even better, here in the United States. I would add that, of the three tested ways, I would favor humor and mockery/ridicule as the primary ammunition. It seems to fit-the-bill nicely and accurately and, when it has occurred (TACO) it has been quite effective!
