A Life of Open Hands
Inspiring Words
Mar 20, 2025
Authoritarianism is a complex phenomenon that spans personal psychology and political systems. Why do some people prefer strong authority figures and strict social order? How do authoritarian leaders rise to power and maintain control? And what can we do to resist authoritarian influence? This post will explore these questions in an engaging, accessible way – from the traits of the authoritarian personality to historical case studies of regimes, and the social factors that make authoritarianism appealing (or alarming). We’ll also look at strategies for recognizing and pushing back against authoritarian tendencies, backed by psychological research and real-world examples.
Defining Authoritarianism
At its core, authoritarianism refers to a preference for strict obedience to authority and a corresponding reduction of personal freedom or dissent. In general terms, an authoritarian mindset values order, control, and hierarchy – often at the expense of individual liberties or open debate. In politics and government, authoritarianism literally means “blind submission to authority” and the repression of independent thought and action
. Authoritarian governments concentrate power in the hands of a single leader or ruling elite, with no meaningful checks and balances. There are no free elections to change leaders, and citizens lack basic civil liberties or rights to oppose the regime
. Decisions are made for the people, not by the people.
Authoritarianism can manifest in many areas of life. In a family, an authoritarian parent might demand absolute obedience from children (“My house, my rules – no questions!”). In the workplace, an authoritarian boss might micromanage and tolerate no feedback. In religious or social groups, authoritarian leaders enforce rigid doctrines. What these settings have in common is a power dynamic where one side expects unquestioning compliance from others. The focus is on maintaining order, conformity, and control, rather than on individual expression or democratic input.
In everyday language, we often use “authoritarian” pejoratively – to describe someone or something as tyrannical or overbearing. But psychologists have studied authoritarianism as a personality orientation and a social attitude, trying to understand what drives it. Is it a trait some people carry with them? Or a reaction anyone might have under certain conditions? Let’s dig into the psychology.
Psychological Traits and Tendencies of the Authoritarian Personality
Why are some individuals more drawn to authoritarian beliefs or leaders? Decades of research suggest that certain personality traits and cognitive tendencies make up an “authoritarian personality.” One famous early study was Theodor Adorno’s F-scale (F for fascism) in 1950, developed in the aftermath of World War II to explain why ordinary people supported or participated in fascist regimes. According to Adorno’s theory, people with an authoritarian personality tend to share a cluster of traits
- Rigid Conventionalism: A “blind allegiance to conventional beliefs” about right and wrong psychologistworld.com
. Authoritarian individuals strongly uphold traditional norms and values. They resist new ideas and prefer the familiar. - Submission to Authority: A high respect for and deference to established authorities psychologistworld.com
. They believe in following leaders and rules without question – authority figures are to be obeyed, not challenged. - Authoritarian Aggression: Hostility toward those who don’t follow conventional norms or who are perceived as “different” psychologistworld.com
. There is often a punitive attitude toward outsiders, dissenters, or anyone deemed deviant. - Cynicism and Human Skepticism: A negative view of human nature, assuming people are generally selfish, immoral, or weak psychologistworld.com
. This can justify the need for strong control (“people would lie, cheat or steal if not kept in line”). - Need for Strong Leadership: A belief that society needs tough, decisive leaders to impose order psychologistworld.com
. Authoritarian personalities feel more secure when a powerful leader is in charge, displaying “uncompromising power.” - Simplistic Thinking: A tendency to seek simple, black-and-white answers to complex problems psychologistworld.com
. They show “resistance to creative, dangerous ideas” and intolerance for ambiguity or nuance. The world is seen in absolutes – good vs. evil, us vs. them – with little patience for complexity pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
. - Projection and Scapegoating: Often, personal feelings of fear or inadequacy are projected onto target groups seen as “the enemy” psychologistworld.com
. The authoritarian mindset may find a scapegoat to blame for problems (e.g. a minority group or “immoral” outsiders), which then justifies aggressive action against that group.
Not everyone who has one or two of these tendencies is an “authoritarian personality,” of course, but taken together they paint a portrait of a mindset drawn to order, tradition, and clear authority structures. Importantly, these traits correlate with prejudice and hostility toward out-groups. In Adorno’s original research, people who scored high on the F-scale also tended to exhibit more ethnic and social prejudices. Later studies found that such individuals see the world as a dangerous place that requires a strong defense
. They prefer cognitive rigidity – seeing things in black-and-white – partly because uncertainty and ambiguity cause them discomfort
Psychologist Bob Altemeyer built on this work in the 1980s with his concept of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). Altemeyer’s RWA scale zeroed in on three attitudinal clusters: authority submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism
. In other words, people who score high on RWA strongly submit to established authorities, support punishing those who defy authority or conventional norms, and adhere tightly to traditional values
. Altemeyer and others showed that RWA is linked to traits like dogmatism, closed-mindedness, and discomfort with uncertainty. These individuals favor order and control and often agree with statements like “Our country needs a powerful leader, in order to destroy the radical and immoral currents prevailing in society today,” which is an example from the RWA questionnaire.
Another classic study highlighting authoritarian tendencies is Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment in the 1960s. Milgram wasn’t measuring authoritarianism per se, but his shocking findings demonstrated how ordinary people can commit harmful acts when instructed by an authority figure. In the experiment, participants were willing to administer what they believed were painful (even fatal) electric shocks to another person simply because an experimenter in a lab coat told them to. A stunning 65% of subjects went all the way to the maximum shock level (450 volts) despite the victim’s apparent screams
. This suggests that deference to authority is a powerful force in human psychology. Those with authoritarian leanings are especially likely to believe “following orders” is the right thing to do, even if it conflicts with their personal conscience.
In summary, the authoritarian personality (or mindset) is characterized by a strong need for order, cognitive rigidity, obedience to authority, and aggression toward out-groups or rule-breakers. Such individuals find comfort in clear hierarchies and rules. They may feel unsettled by change or diversity, and thus they cling to tradition and authority. This is not a clinical diagnosis but rather a pattern observed in social-personality research. It’s important to note that this orientation can exist to varying degrees in people – it’s not just “those people over there.” Under certain conditions (like fear or uncertainty, as we’ll discuss next), even those who normally think of themselves as tolerant may exhibit more authoritarian attitudes.
Social and Cognitive Factors: Fear, Uncertainty, and Group Identity
Authoritarian attitudes don’t exist in a vacuum – they are often triggered or amplified by social and cognitive factors, especially feelings of threat. Research has shown that fear and uncertainty can increase people’s inclination toward authoritarianism. When the world feels dangerous or chaotic, many individuals understandably yearn for safety, security, and clear solutions. This is sometimes called the “authoritarian dynamic”: when threat rises, so does our willingness to accept authoritarian ideas or leaders.
One psychologist described it succinctly: in times of crisis, there is a “human craving for order and security when chaos feels imminent”
. When people are afraid – whether due to economic instability, terrorism, crime, or even rapid social change – they may gravitate toward leaders or policies that promise to restore stability by force or strict control. Feeling under threat narrows our tolerance for ambiguity and diversity; we become more willing to support harsh measures if they supposedly will eliminate the danger. Studies in political psychology have found, for example, that reminders of mortality or danger (such as the threat of terrorism) can lead people to endorse more authoritarian, punitive stances as a way to regain a sense of security
Group identity and “us vs. them” thinking also play a huge role. Authoritarian movements often gain momentum by exploiting ethnic, racial, or national tensions – essentially telling people “your group is under threat from an outside enemy; only a strong hand can protect us.” When individuals strongly identify with an in-group (say, their nation, race, or religion), and they perceive an out-group as threatening that identity, they may support authoritarian actions to defend their group. Psychologically, fear is often channeled into scapegoating: blaming a convenient minority or outsider for society’s ills. This solidifies the in-group (“we good people must band together”) and justifies aggressive tactics against the out-group.
Historically and in current events, we see this pattern clearly. Around the world, politicians have fueled fear and division by scapegoating minorities for social problems and portraying the nation as under siege
For instance, economic or social anxieties might be redirected into hostility toward immigrant communities or religious minorities, accused of being the source of unrest. Research from UC Berkeley’s Othering & Belonging Institute finds a common formula among many authoritarian-leaning leaders: fearmongering, scapegoating marginalized groups, and chipping away at democratic norms
. By defining an “enemy within” or an existential threat, authoritarian rhetoric creates a sense of emergency in which people feel justified in accepting extreme, anti-democratic measures. As one analysis put it, through one psychological lens people see a menacing out-group, and through another they see a heroic leader who will vanquish that threat – “the sense of fear and antagonism...leads people to accept authoritarian measures to protect themselves and their in-group”
.
Another factor is a general intolerance of ambiguity and complexity. Some individuals, by disposition, prefer clear-cut answers and certainty. When faced with a fast-changing, complex world, this need for closure can translate into support for simplistic, strong-handed solutions. Authoritarian messaging often provides simple narratives: “Things are bad because of those people. Elect me, do as I say, and I’ll fix it – no nonsense.” For someone anxious about uncertainty, that message is appealing. Indeed, psychologists have found that intolerance of ambiguity and cognitive rigidity are closely associated with authoritarianism, confirming Adorno’s early hypothesis that authoritarians see the world in absolute, black-and-white terms
. In times of turmoil, even people who normally tolerate diversity might yearn for straightforward answers and gravitate toward leaders who confidently (if misleadingly) claim there are easy solutions (build a wall, ban a group, lock up criminals, etc.).
Social identity, fear, and cognitive style all intertwine: If I believe my society or group is on the brink of chaos (fear), I’m likely to seek a strong protector (authority) and identify an enemy to blame (out-group scapegoating), especially if I’m someone uncomfortable with uncertainty. Authoritarianism feeds on that psychology. As one set of key points explains, “Authoritarians commonly rely on fear and anger mongering, and on promises of protection, to secure control.”
They appeal to a more primitive impulse in us – the desire to feel safe and united against a common threat.
Of course, not everyone responds to fear by becoming authoritarian. There are many personality and cultural factors that mediate this. But on a large scale, fear and uncertainty can swing public opinion in a more authoritarian direction. A classic example is the surge of public support for authoritarian policies or leaders after a nation is attacked or during economic depression. When people panic, they might willingly trade some freedom for the promise of security (real or illusory). Next, we’ll see how authoritarian leaders exploit these dynamics in political systems.
Authoritarianism in Political Systems: How Leaders Seize and Keep Control
Authoritarianism isn’t just a personal trait – it becomes very concrete (and consequential) when it shapes entire governments. Authoritarian political systems are those in which power is highly concentrated, opposition is suppressed, and freedoms are curtailed. They range from outright dictatorships and military juntas to semi-authoritarian “illiberal democracies” where elections exist but the playing field is heavily tilted.
In such systems, leaders maintain control through a mix of propaganda, coercion, elimination of dissent, and nationalism. The 20th century’s most notorious authoritarian regimes – think Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China – shared some common characteristics. They typically had a charismatic supreme leader, a single mass party supporting the regime, and a powerful secret police to enforce the leader’s will
. Dissenting voices were silenced through censorship or violence. The state often took over media and education to brainwash the population and inculcate loyalty to the regime
. No opposition was tolerated: critics were exiled, imprisoned, or killed
. In short, these regimes strove for total control over society – which is why extreme authoritarian systems are often called totalitarian.
Propaganda is one of the most potent tools of authoritarian rulers. By controlling the narrative, they shape how people perceive reality. Authoritarian propaganda typically glorifies the leader or ruling party, promotes nationalism, and demonizes perceived enemies. A classic illustration is the propaganda machine of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. Nazi propagandists (led by Joseph Goebbels) flooded Germany with messages portraying Hitler as a heroic savior of the nation and depicting Jews, communists, and other scapegoats as dangers to German society. Posters, films, radio broadcasts, and rallies all crafted the “Hitler myth” – the image of Hitler as a strong, patriotic leader destined to save Germany
.
Nazi propaganda portrayed its leader as the heroic savior of the nation. For example, posters like “Ein Kampf um Deutschland” (“A Struggle for Germany”) depicted Hitler and his paramilitary followers as Germany’s righteous defenders. Such imagery was key in creating the Hitler myth, presenting him as a “strong and patriotic leader who would save Germany.”
Through constant repetition of these themes – national rebirth, unity against enemies, and the infallibility of the Führer – the Nazi regime gained broad public support and stifled dissent.
Hand in hand with propaganda goes censorship and suppression of dissent. Authoritarian regimes cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints for long, so they muzzle the press, outlaw opposition parties, and punish critics. In Stalin’s Soviet Union, for instance, censorship was total – newspapers printed only state-approved information, and any criticism of the Communist Party could land one in the Gulag (labor camps). As one historical example notes, “in Stalin’s Soviet Union, censorship was used to suppress any criticism of the regime and promote the idea of a socialist utopia.”
Propaganda told citizens how great the system was, while censorship ensured they rarely heard otherwise. Many authoritarian governments also employ secret police or intelligence agencies that monitor the populace and intimidate or eliminate dissidents (e.g. the Gestapo in Nazi Germany, the KGB in the Soviet Union). Fear of being reported or punished keeps people in line.
Nationalism and the creation of a “common enemy” are another hallmark. By rallying people around pride in the nation (or race or religion) and warning of threats from outsiders, authoritarian leaders bind their followers together and justify extreme measures. For example, Hitler used intense nationalism and racism – asserting the superiority of the “Aryan” German people and blaming Jews and Bolsheviks for Germany’s problems – to unify Germans under his rule. Likewise, authoritarian regimes often stage confrontations (cold or hot wars) with foreign enemies to boost domestic support; when people feel under attack from the outside, they’re more likely to support a strongman leader. Sometimes the “enemy” is internal (an ethnic minority, political opposition, etc.), sometimes external, often both. As a study of authoritarian methods explains, manipulating nationalistic feelings through propaganda, controlling education to indoctrinate youth, and scapegoating a minority or opposing ideology are all strategies such leaders use to consolidate power
.
Real-world case studies abound. Nazi Germany is the classic case of an authoritarian regime (specifically fascist and totalitarian) that used all these tools: a cult of personality around Hitler, state-controlled propaganda extolling Nazi ideals, violent suppression of any opposition (through laws like the Enabling Act and institutions like the SS and Gestapo), and fervent hyper-nationalism (leading to World War II). Stalin’s USSR likewise revolved around Stalin’s personal dictatorship, with heavy propaganda (Soviet slogans, posters, rewriting history to credit Stalin), strict censorship (only praise for the party was allowed), and brutal purges of anyone deemed disloyal (millions were executed or sent to labor camps in the 1930s).
Other 20th-century examples include Mao Zedong’s China, Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, and many military juntas. Each had unique features, but all centralized power and crushed dissent. Many were born out of crises: Fascist regimes often arose in turbulent times of instability, with leaders like Hitler and Mussolini exploiting economic woes and fears of communism to gain support
. For instance, the Great Depression was a key factor in Hitler’s rise. Germany’s Weimar Republic struggled with hyperinflation and mass unemployment in the early 1930s. As people lost faith in the democratic government’s ability to fix the crisis, Hitler’s authoritarian message became more attractive
. Nazi propaganda explicitly targeted people’s economic fears – promising “Bread and Work” to the jobless and blaming Jews/Marxists for Germany’s misery
. In one election poster from 1932, Hitler was portrayed as the man who would “overcome poverty and misery” for Germany
. This appeal to fear and hope helped the Nazis win supporters across social classes.
In contemporary times, we still see authoritarianism in various forms. North Korea under the Kim dynasty is one of the most extreme authoritarian (totalitarian) states today – a hereditary dictatorship with a cult of personality so intense that children are taught to revere the Kim leaders like gods, and virtually all information is state-controlled
. Dissent is non-existent; attempting to question the regime can mean death or imprisonment of one’s entire family. Other modern examples include countries like China (authoritarian one-party rule, though with more openness economically), Saudi Arabia (an absolute monarchy), and a number of regimes that hold elections but under heavy manipulation (sometimes termed “hybrid” or “illiberal” regimes). Even in democracies, there are rising movements of authoritarian populism – leaders who come to power via elections but then start undermining democratic institutions, silencing critics, and ruling in a top-down manner. Cases such as Turkey in the 2010s under Erdoğan, or Hungary under Orbán, are often cited in this context.
How do authoritarian leaders maintain control? To summarize, they concentrate power, spread disinformation and propaganda, suppress dissent ruthlessly, and often use nationalism or “us vs. them” narratives to legitimize their rule. As one analysis of modern authoritarian trends put it: these leaders “suppress political opposition, spread disinformation, fuel political violence and turn independent institutions into political weapons...they fan emotionally charged topics and scapegoat marginalized groups to justify their grip on power.”
In an authoritarian system, the normal checks on power (free press, courts, civil society) are weakened or co-opted. Control of information is paramount: if you control what people see and hear, you largely control what they think. And by leveraging fear and nationalism, authoritarian regimes get a significant portion of the populace to actively support their heavy-handed rule – which brings us to the question of why so many people, at times, rally behind authoritarian leaders.
Why People Support Authoritarianism: The Appeal of Order and Fear-Based Politics
It can be bewildering to watch throngs of citizens cheer for leaders who jail journalists or dismantle democracy. Yet, history and psychology give us insight into the appeal of authoritarianism for many people, especially under certain conditions. Several key factors make authoritarian leaders or policies attractive:
- Fear and Security: When people feel threatened – by terrorism, war, crime, or societal upheaval – they may support authoritarian figures who promise to protect them. Authoritarians trade in fear. By exaggerating threats and offering themselves as the sole protectors, such leaders capitalize on a basic human motivation: survival and safety. As one commentary noted, “Leaders are aware of this basic psychology and exaggerate threats to gain popularity.”
psychologicalscience.org
If an authoritarian can make voters believe “we are on the brink of disaster, and only I can save you,” many will rally to that call. This is essentially a fear-based decision: people might be willing to accept draconian measures (even giving up rights) if it quells their anxieties. Research in terror management theory has shown that reminders of mortality (like a terrorist attack or even prompting people to think about death) can increase support for authoritarian or charismatic leaders, because they unconsciously seek that protective father-figure in times of fear. - Need for Order: Related to fear is a craving for stable order. In chaotic times, the promise of law, order, and traditional values can be very alluring. Authoritarian leaders often present themselves as champions of law and order who will “restore peace” or “make things work again.” When democracies struggle to get things done (due to partisanship or bureaucracy), some citizens get frustrated and see a strongman as an efficient alternative. There’s a seductive simplicity in the idea that one decisive leader, unconstrained by checks and balances, can solve problems quickly. For individuals who value orderliness and clarity, this is appealing. They might think: “At least someone will take charge and fix things – freedom and debate are luxuries we can’t afford right now.” This mindset tends to grow in times of economic turmoil or rapid social change, when the old norms seem to be collapsing. (We can recall that in Weimar Germany, the chaos of economic collapse and street violence made Hitler’s authoritarian order seem preferable to many
theholocaustexplained.org
.) - Economic Anxiety: Instability or hardship in the economy is often a catalyst for authoritarian support. High unemployment, inflation, or inequality can breed discontent with the current system. Populist authoritarian figures tap into this by promising quick economic fixes, blaming elites or foreigners for the hardship, and offering simple solutions (whether realistic or not). For example, during the Great Depression, millions gravitated to authoritarian movements (far-right and far-left alike) out of desperation. A poster from the Nazi rise to power literally played on “the German people’s fear of poverty and misery, presenting Hitler as a strong leader who could help Germany overcome poverty.”
theholocaustexplained.org
When people struggle to feed their families, a leader who says “I’ll give you jobs and food, just trust me and don’t mind the emergency powers I take” can seem very attractive. Similarly, contemporary voters facing stagnant wages or job loss might favor candidates with tough talk on trade or immigration, even at the expense of democratic niceties. - Group Identity and Prejudice: Authoritarian leaders often amplify existing prejudices or resentments in society – for example, racial or religious biases, or hostility toward immigrants. They frame themselves as the defenders of the “true” identity of the nation (or the majority group) against traitors and outsiders. People who harbor biases or feel that their group’s dominant status is threatened might support an authoritarian who pledges to put “us” back on top and put “them” in their place. This can include promises to crack down on minorities, expel immigrants, or otherwise enforce a favored group’s dominance. Unfortunately, bigotry can be politically motivating; authoritarian movements throughout history have scapegoated minorities (Jews in Nazi Germany, “enemies of the people” in Stalin’s USSR, Rohingya in modern Myanmar, etc.) and found willing supporters among those who share those biases or can be persuaded to. The psychology here often involves redirecting personal frustrations toward a target – it’s comforting to believe “my life would be better if not for [scapegoat group], so I’ll support the man who gets rid of them.” It also creates a sense of belonging: rallies where everyone salutes the strong leader and boo a common enemy provide a powerful feeling of community and purpose.
- Simplistic Clarity: As mentioned earlier, many people are uncomfortable with uncertainty and complexity. Authoritarian rhetoric provides clear, simple narratives: “Everything will be good if you follow me; those people are the problem; dissenters are traitors; our traditional values must be upheld.” For someone exhausted by ambiguity or rapid change, these black-and-white explanations are psychologically soothing. It removes the burden of nuanced thinking or the anxiety of ambiguity. Cognitive psychology research shows that some individuals have a higher need for cognitive closure – essentially, a need to have firm answers and avoid ambiguity. Such individuals are more likely to gravitate to authoritarian and extremist ideologies that provide that closure (whether it’s far-right or far-left authoritarianism). In short, authoritarianism can be mentally easy – it tells you what to think and who to blame, which can be a relief compared to the messy, uncertain nature of liberal democratic debate.
- Charisma and Emotional Appeal: Let’s not forget the emotional pull of a charismatic leader. Authoritarian leaders often cultivate a larger-than-life persona – a swagger, confidence, even a “cult of personality.” They hold mass rallies that generate enthusiasm and loyalty (imagine the ecstatic crowds for Hitler, or the adoring posters of Mao). Humans are social creatures, and many find it compelling to be part of a grand, emotionally charged movement. The authoritarian leader often positions himself as synonymous with the nation or the cause, so supporting him feels like supporting one’s country or group. Propaganda may even take on quasi-religious tones, elevating the leader to savior status. People can become genuinely devoted to such leaders, defending them fiercely. This emotional bond can override rational analysis; supporters may excuse the leader’s lies or abuses, because they’ve invested their identity and hopes in him.
It’s important to note that not all supporters of authoritarian leaders are inherently “authoritarian personalities.” Many might simply be scared, desperate, or misled. They may support an authoritarian option as a last resort or lesser evil in their eyes. For instance, voters might back a strongman because they fear a worse outcome (like terrorism or economic collapse) if they don’t. Authoritarian movements often manipulate information and emotions to make people believe there is no alternative. A citizen in an authoritarian country might genuinely think their leader is protecting them from horrible threats, because that’s all they’ve ever been told.
In sum, the psychological appeal of authoritarianism lies in its promises: safety from harm, simple solutions, restored pride, and a sense of belonging and purpose. These promises are powerful, especially when people feel insecure. History has shown time and again that in periods of fear and hardship, large segments of society will turn to authoritarian leaders who appear to offer hope or stability. The tragedy is that those promises are usually a facade – authoritarian rule often ends up delivering more misery and repression. Yet, the cycle continues in different forms, which is why understanding these tendencies is so crucial if we want to break the cycle.
Resisting Authoritarian Influence: Recognizing the Signs and Standing Up
Given that authoritarianism can emerge in any society under the right (or wrong) conditions, what can individuals and communities do to resist authoritarian tendencies? The good news is that history also provides many examples of people successfully challenging authoritarianism – from anti-dictatorship movements to the resilience of democratic institutions. Here are some strategies for recognizing and pushing back against authoritarian influence:
- Stay Informed and Think Critically: Authoritarianism often gains a foothold when people accept propaganda or false narratives uncritically. One of the first lines of defense is independent, critical thinking. Be wary of leaders who rely on fear-mongering and scapegoating. If a politician is saying “be very afraid and trust only me”, that’s a big red flag. Try to consume a diversity of information sources – don’t get all your news from a single outlet, especially if it has a strong partisan or state-controlled slant. By comparing multiple sources and checking facts, you can reduce the chance of being misled. Media literacy is key: learn to spot the techniques of propaganda (emotional appeals, discrediting of dissenters, etc.). The more informed the populace is, the harder it is for authoritarians to deceive them. In fact, research suggests that education is a powerful antidote – higher education levels are associated with lower prejudice and lower authoritarian attitudes on average
en.wikipedia.org
. Educating ourselves and others, not just academically but about civic values and history, builds immunity against simplistic authoritarian narratives en.wikipedia.org
. - Recognize Emotional Manipulation: Authoritarian influencers play on emotions, especially fear, anger, and tribal identity. When you find yourself feeling extremely angry or afraid of a particular group due to something you heard or read, pause and ask: “Who wants me to feel this way, and why?” Recognizing that your emotions are being deliberately manipulated can help break the spell. It’s not about ignoring real problems – it’s about not letting fear drive you to abandon your principles. Try to engage the more rational part of your mind: is Group X truly an existential threat, or is that an exaggeration? Is this policy really justified, or am I being swept by emotion? Authoritarians often frame issues in black and white; by deliberately seeking nuance (asking for evidence, considering other perspectives), you resist that framing.
- Uphold Democratic Norms and Institutions: On a societal level, the best defense against authoritarianism is a strong institutional framework that disperses power and holds leaders accountable. This means supporting the checks and balances that prevent any one person or party from dominating. For example, a free press that can question leaders, an independent judiciary that can uphold the rule of law, and robust civil society organizations (like watchdog groups, human rights organizations, etc.) all act as firewalls. As citizens, supporting these institutions – through advocacy, voting, and perhaps donations – is vital. Beware of leaders who attack the press as “enemies,” who try to politicize the courts or law enforcement, or who undermine elections. Those are classic authoritarian moves. Defending the rule of law and fair electoral processes is critical. If you’re in a democracy, exercise your right to vote and insist on transparency. If you’re in an authoritarian state, supporting any remaining independent voices (even quietly) can help. It’s often when institutions fail or fall asleep at the wheel that authoritarians manage to dismantle democracy from within.
- Build Inclusive Communities: Since authoritarianism feeds on us vs. them divisions, building bridges across different groups in society is a powerful countermeasure. Get to know people from other ethnicities, religions, or political persuasions as individuals. It’s much harder to buy into blanket stereotypes or hate an “out-group” if you have real human relationships with members of that group. Intergroup contact and dialogue can reduce the prejudice that authoritarians try to inflame. On a community level, support leaders and initiatives that promote inclusion and address people’s concerns without demonizing others. For example, if economic anxiety is high in your area, work on constructive solutions (job training programs, etc.) so that demagogues have less fertile ground for blame games. A society with a strong fabric of trust and empathy is tougher for authoritarianism to tear apart.
- Don’t Ignore Early Warning Signs: Authoritarianism often creeps in gradually. Today’s small norm violations can become tomorrow’s full-blown dictatorship. If a leader starts undermining the media, joking about staying in power for life, or encroaching on independent institutions, take it seriously sooner rather than later. It’s easier to stop a slide toward authoritarianism early than to reverse it after it’s entrenched. Publicly calling out undemocratic behaviors and rallying others to object (peacefully and through legal means) can put would-be authoritarians on notice that people are watching. Social media, for all its flaws, can be a tool to raise awareness rapidly when democratic norms are under threat.
- Peaceful Resistance and Protest: History shows that mass citizen movements can challenge and even overturn authoritarian regimes. When people organize and stand up in huge numbers for their rights, it can shake even the most entrenched dictators. The nonviolent protest movements that brought down Communist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989, for example, are inspiring cases. Ordinary people bravely took to the streets to demand freedom, and regimes fell. Tens of thousands of citizens pouring into the streets to resist authoritarianism have toppled autocrats in countries as diverse as Algeria, Sudan, and Zimbabwe in recent years
tnsr.org
. Even in places like the Soviet Union or apartheid South Africa, sustained internal and external pressure eventually led to change. If you live under an authoritarian government, joining with others in collective action – protests, strikes, dissemination of truth – is risky but can be powerful. If you live in a democracy, protesting early against authoritarian-leaning measures (for example, large demonstrations in defense of an independent judiciary or against corruption) can force leaders to back off. The key is solidarity: authoritarians keep power by making people feel isolated and helpless; when people unite, that illusion breaks.
Citizens can challenge authoritarianism through mass protest and solidarity. Here, a crowd in Berlin gathers in November 1989 at a new opening in the Berlin Wall
. Peaceful protests and public pressure that year led to the fall of the Wall and the collapse of East Germany’s authoritarian regime. Across history – from Eastern Europe in 1989 to recent movements in Sudan and Algeria – large-scale citizen activism has proven to be one of the most effective forces in toppling dictators and demanding democratic change.
- Support and Empathy, Not Demonization: One counter-intuitive strategy is to address the legitimate fears or grievances that make people susceptible to authoritarian appeals. Not everyone drawn to an authoritarian leader is a villain; some are scared or feel unheard. By empathizing with those concerns and finding democratic, inclusive solutions, we can undercut the authoritarian’s appeal. For example, if a community fears crime, pushing for effective yet rights-respecting policing and community programs will do more good than simply labeling those citizens “authoritarian.” If people feel economically left behind, work toward policies that reduce inequality and improve opportunities. Healing divisions and improving people’s everyday security and dignity removes the soil in which authoritarianism grows.
Lastly, remember the value of democracy and freedom. It may sound abstract, but continually reminding ourselves and others why open societies are worth it can bolster resistance. Democracies allow change without violence, protect individual dignity, and correct mistakes openly – whereas authoritarianism, for all its promises of order, tends to breed corruption, abuse, and stagnation. As one 2020 essay warned, trading away democracy for the illusion of quick fixes is a grave mistake
. In times of crisis, the strengths of democracy – flexibility, accountability, free flow of information – are actually more crucial than ever
. Keeping that in mind can steel us against the temptation to say “maybe a benign dictator would be better.” History refutes the myth of the “benign dictator” in the long run.
In conclusion, resisting authoritarian influence requires vigilance, courage, and a commitment to core democratic values. It means calling out fear-mongering and scapegoating when we see them, educating ourselves and others, and standing in solidarity to uphold fundamental rights. Authoritarianism often feeds on despair and division, so hope and unity are its antidotes. Each of us, in our communities, can help foster a political culture that values truth over propaganda, inclusion over hatred, and liberty over coercion. By doing so, we honor those who fought past authoritarian regimes and help ensure “never again” truly means never again. As the examples of people power have shown – from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the People Power Revolution in the Philippines – even the mightiest authoritarian walls can come down when enough ordinary citizens decide to stand together for freedom
. Recognizing the psychology of authoritarianism arms us to better resist it, ensuring that our societies remain humane, open, and free.
References:
- Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Brothers. (Origin of the F-scale measuring fascist or authoritarian tendencies.)
- Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-Wing Authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press. (Defines right-wing authoritarianism as a combination of submission to authority, aggression toward out-groups, and conventionalism theauthoritarians.org
.) - Duncan, L. E., & Peterson, B. E. (2014). Authoritarianism, cognitive rigidity, and the processing of ambiguous information. Journal of Social Psychology, 154(6), 480-490. (Found that intolerance of ambiguity and black-and-white thinking are strongly associated with authoritarian attitudes pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
.) - Britannica – Authoritarianism: Lindstaedt, N. (2025). Authoritarianism – Definition, History, Examples, & Facts. Encyclopædia Britannica. (Describes authoritarian regimes as characterized by blind submission to authority and lack of civil liberties britannica.com
; notes 20th-century examples with charismatic leaders and secret police britannica.com
.) - Psychologist World – Authoritarian Personality: (n.d.). A Look at the Authoritarian Personality. PsychologistWorld.com. (Summarizes Adorno’s findings: e.g., authoritarian personality entails conventionalism, submission to authority, aggression against non-conformists, a black-and-white worldview, and projection of fears onto scapegoats psychologistworld.com
psychologistworld.com
.) - Berkeley News – Authoritarian Populism: Thulin, L. (2025). There’s a term for Trump’s political style: authoritarian populism. Berkeley News. (Discusses modern authoritarian strategies: fearmongering, scapegoating marginalized groups, eroding democratic norms news.berkeley.edu
.) - Juan-Torres et al. – Authoritarianism and Populism: Juan-Torres, M., et al. (2024). Authoritarian Populism – A Global Phenomenon. Othering & Belonging Institute, UC Berkeley. (Explains how identity-based outgroup threats and “us vs. them” narratives lead people to justify anti-democratic measures news.berkeley.edu
; also how authoritarians consolidate power by suppressing opposition and fanning emotional issues news.berkeley.edu
.) - Psychology Today – Fear-Based Politics: Henricks, T. (2024). Fear-Based Politics: The Psychology of Authoritarianism. Psychology Today, Sept 27, 2024. (Key point: authoritarians rely on fear and anger-mongering, and promises of protection, to secure control psychologytoday.com
.) - Holocaust Explained – Nazi Rise to Power: The Wiener Holocaust Library. The role of economic instability in the Nazi rise to power. (Details how Nazi propaganda exploited fear of uncertainty and economic despair, offering simple slogans like “Bread and Work” to gain support theholocaustexplained.org
theholocaustexplained.org
. Nazi posters portrayed Hitler as Germany’s savior from poverty theholocaustexplained.org
.) - JSTOR – Perceived Threat and Authoritarianism: (Snippet) Increasing conservatism is associated with fear of death, lower stimulus-seeking, and dislike of complexity jstor.org
. (Illustrates how existential fears and low tolerance for complexity correlate with authoritarian-leaning attitudes.) - Association for Psychological Science – Fear and Authoritarianism: Gelfand, M. (2020). Authoritarian Leaders Thrive on Fear. We Need to Help People Feel Safe. (Emphasizes that the human need for security in chaotic times makes democracy fragile psychologicalscience.org
and that leaders often exaggerate threats to increase their appeal psychologicalscience.org
.) - Journal of Democracy – Resisting the Authoritarian Temptation: Lazar, N. C., & Wallace, J. (2025). Resisting the Authoritarian Temptation. Journal of Democracy, 36(1). (Argues that despite frustrations, democracies have unique strengths – flexibility, accountability, information flow – that make them better than authoritarian regimes at handling crises journalofdemocracy.org
journalofdemocracy.org
.) - Historical Examples of Resistance: – The fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) – crowds of citizens gathered to peacefully pressure the East German regime, leading to its collapse commons.wikimedia.org
. – Recent mass protests in Sudan (2019) and Algeria (2019) – nonviolent movements that forced longtime authoritarian rulers to step down tnsr.org
. These cases show the power of collective action in resisting authoritarianism.
