Many people will suffer needlessly because of President Vladimir Putin’s political and military ambitions. Not only those caught in the cross-fire of war in the Ukraine, but also Putin’s own citizens, who are reeling under international sanctions. And the waves of war, much like the waves in a pond, reverberate in ever-widening circles of destruction. For example, Ukraine’s nearest neighbours will surely be wondering if they are next in line.
Some would undoubtedly lay the blame for this war firmly at the doorstep of Putin himself. They would argue that it is his charismatic, egocentric, and power-hungry personality that sent troops into the Ukraine. There is probably a lot of truth to this. It is certainly the case that political outcomes depend to a great extent on the character and ambitions of political leaders.
Others would try to pin the blame on other international actors, such as NATO, for putting Russia’s borders under pressure.
There is probably some truth to both of these explanations, even if many, including myself, are inclined to believe that there is absolutely no excuse for Russia’s military invasion of the Ukraine.
However, this still leaves one critical factor unaccounted for, namely, the role of domestic political structures in enabling one man, at the helm of one government, to wield a sufficient amount of power to be able to unilaterally unleash an international war.
Even if Mr Putin was Mother Teresa, the mere fact that he can unleash the Russian army on neighbouring countries just because he feels like it, as the “supreme commander-in-chief of the Russian Armed Forces,” means that many people’s lives, and the destiny of entire nations, depend on how Putin feels about the world when he wakes up in the morning.
I do not mean to imply that national political leaders like Putin work alone, or are unsusceptible to the influence, whether overt or behind-the-scences, of other national and global actors. Indeed, it is perfectly possible that other interested parties, whether economical or political, exerted some influence - and perhaps even a decisive influence - over Putin’s decision to lead Russia into this war.
If Vladimir Putin is representing the interests of a particular class, and not really acting on his own initiative, then the appearance of the “strong leader” may conceal the reality of a cabal of powerful actors, with Putin as their figurehead. In that case, strictly speaking, Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine would not be the work of a tyranny, but of an oligarchy, that is, a specific political and economic class with reliable access to the levers of power.
Either way, it seems clear enough that one crucial factor facilitating Russia’s oppressive intervention in Ukraine is the fact that the levers of national political and military power are handily concentrated in the hands of one man and one government, within a highly centralised political system.
Whether you believe Mr Putin and his government are acting independently, or at the behest of larger forces, the fact that they hold the power of military conquest in their hands, relatively unchecked by other domestic stakeholders, such as regional governments outside of Moscow, makes them incredibly dangerous to national and international security and order.
The Russian invasion of the Ukraine is not just the product of a reckless decision on the part of one political leader; it is also the product of a political system that entrusts an extraordinary amount of political, economic, and military power into the hands of one man and his entourage, and indirectly, into the hands of whoever manages to gain leverage over them.
And lest we be tempted to think this is a problem unique to Russia, we should not forget that the President of the United States now has the power, at least de facto, to order a full-scale invasion of another country with no effective external check on his military ambitions other than the formal power of Congress to refuse to authorise the war, after it is already raging.
Tyranny has two faces. One is inward-looking: the tyranny that governments exercise against their own citizens, when they enslave them, seize their property, and trample on their rights, usually in the name of some Greater Good such as a national emergency. Another is outward-looking: the tyranny that national governments exercise against the international community, and indirectly, against their own citizens through the repercussions of their foreign exploits.
We do not need to look far back in history to find examples of domestic tyranny. Consider, for example, Western governments’ suspension of the right to protest under the pretext of public health, or the efforts of political leaders like Trudeau and Macron to make life hell for citizens who declined a specific medication, treating them as social outcasts, refusing them access to shops and public transport, and unceremoniously removing them from their jobs.
We saw the outward face of tyranny when the US government propped up a dictatorial and oligarchical regime in Iraq or held prisoners of war for years on end in Guantanamo Bay without ever charging them with any specific crime. We saw the outward face of tyranny when Russia’s President ordered a military strike on the Ukraine, putting his military and political ambitions above the safety and rights of Ukrainean citizens.
Both the inward and outward faces of tyranny are greatly facilitated by the concentration of power in the hands of one person or institution.
Of course, the mere possession of power is not the same thing as oppression or tyranny: it is possible for power to be concentrated in the hands of a single government and used for the good of the people. However, if the only real check against oppression is the goodness of the people in charge, then political structures are ripe for abuse by malicious and irresponsible actors.
In the short term, the most pressing task confronting global leaders is to bring an end to the war in Ukraine as soon as possible.
However, as long as political, economic, and military power is heavily concentrated in the hands of national governments, both domestic and international security and order will be vulnerable to the unchecked ambitions of national leaders and the elite actors that prop them up.
In the long term, we must work toward a situation in which national powers are taken out of the hands of small and unaccountable elites, and subject instead to robust multi-lateral controls, in the context of politically, economically, and militarily decentralised federations.
While this would not absolutely guarantee international peace, it would serve as a critical buffer against the Putins, Trudeaus, and Guantanamo Bays of our time.
Thanks for reading!
If you would like to give a little extra push to my work in defence of a free and open society, you might consider upgrading to a paid subscription. A paid subscription:
unlocks all blog posts, including subscriber-only content
gives you exclusive access to occasional online Q & A events with the author.
Here are some other ways to help my work:
I really liked the two faces you presented...and you are correct, we are also ruled by an oligarchy, which might consist of the small group of powerful men and corporations who run this country. We do have to take this power away....
These days the main source of tyranny isn’t any one leader but instead the less visible structures of imperial global capitalism working through the deep state structures of what is left of the nation states. All modern day US presidents were mere functionaries of this inverted totalitarianism. Putin is himself, at least, partially a creature of these forces. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine did not so much originate in Putin’s head as it was imposed on Russia through relentless eastward march of NATO, coupled with deft manipulation of Putin’s psychological weaknesses. Imperial structures wanted this war and they’ve got it. Not to discern the role of these imperial supra national forces disconnects your analysis from critical elements of our reality, and inflicts on it an unrecoverable injury.