Political nightmares: how to confront them

And that love/hate relationship with political leaders

For centuries, political theorists have scared audiences with two favourite action scripts: the one in which there’s no state power, and the one in which there’s too much state power.

The trailer for the first starts with the ominous words, “In a world without government, where you live in perpetual fear…” That’s inspired by Thomas Hobbes’s famous take on how life in a state of nature – in which there’s no sovereign power to keep us all in awe – would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. Hence we need an unimpeachable all-powerful person or assembly to secure our common-wealth. Later in the seventeenth century, John Locke wrote a less scary version: in a state of nature, people have figured out that they should live by the Golden Rule, but they want revenge on some barbarians who didn’t read the ten-point memo that God had sent via Moses. So they turn to a trusted hero to lead them out against this enemy. And then along came William of Orange.

The second action script imagines a world in which there’s excessive government. One evil man wants to seize absolute power and enslave everyone, but luckily there’s an American hero who’ll end this tyrant’s career. Or an agent stumbles upon a deep-state plot and goes rogue in order to uncover and defeat the enemy within. Or those countless movies in which the Nazis are taking over. Corruption and evil go right to the top, infecting a system in which we’d naively trusted.

Either way, we’re haunted by the spectre of power, be it too much or too little. Oppression or anarchy: choose your movie.

These two kinds of scripts may sound like they contradict one another, but in fact they work in concert. You need to fear a lack of state power in order to consent to having it. Once you’re living with it, however, the fear of its coercive power keeps you obedient. And so the Hollywood hero has to push back constantly against this state power, to repeatedly prove that no one can take away your liberty, crush your authentic self or deny your true identity.

But, just as it would be unwise to use Hollywood romances as our guide to dating, it’s unwise to let action movies – and early-modern philosophers – shape our understanding of the state and political power.

Are there alternatives, then? Of course there are. For some, the nightmare scenario might be a network-state led by Peter Thiel or Elon Musk; for others the Handmaid’s Tale; or both at once. Or imagine an institution in which you can be punished for erecting “invisible barriers” or saying something that doesn’t sound “mana-enhancing” – which, in an Orwellian twist, might call itself a state-funded university. One person’s utopia is another’s nightmare.

The best way to stop a recurring nightmare is to turn and look at it.

No political ideology provides a complete description of the world as it is, let alone as it should be. And an ideology gains (rather than loses) its clarity, purpose and power from the people and ideas that oppose it. Ecologism or green political theory gets its strength from the polluters. Conservative sentiments are aroused by the feckless and by the woke. We should (ironically) thank our political opponents for helping us to clarify what exactly we stand for, as they bring into sharp focus the things we don’t stand for. These kinds of contradictions motivate change, underpinned by material interests and power-relations.

Below is a famous satirical portrait of the Russian socio-political hierarchy in about 1900.

In fact, those at the very bottom, especially the rural peasants, constituted about four fifths of the Russian population – so they’re proportionally under-represented here, on top of being unrepresented politically. Beyond its particular social context, the image exemplifies a common view about political power – emanating from a sovereign pinnacle down through its agencies and its bourgeoisie to oppress and exploit the labouring classes. It’s a classic image of power over others. While it speaks a certain truth about a society, however, it over-simplifies the complexities of relations of power that permeated it, and it could be considered alongside other perspectives. There were conservative or Tolstoyan views about the peasantry that sought benevolently to educate and uplift them. Russian feminists of the time would have conjured up quite a different image of the injustices of their society – as might the many ethnic minorities across the vast geographical expanse of the empire. The Old Believers, whose version of the Orthodox faith had been anathematised for more than two centuries, would have given us yet another image. Meanwhile, atheistic revolutionary movements went “underground” and split into competing factions, such as Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. They weren’t as united as they appear to be in the picture above.

Incidentally, although the Romanovs were one of the longest-reigning dynasties ever, the Tsarist government was not much longer for this world by 1900, as terrorism, war and revolution brought them to a violent end. Quite a number of those at the very top of that pile were assassinated.

“Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” Henry IV, Part II, Act III, scene i.

“I shall be an autocrat: that’s my trade. And the good Lord will forgive me: that’s his.” Catherine the Great.

“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” Stalin.

“We need to cut off the King’s head: in political theory that has still to be done.” Michel Foucault.

Political thinking is still (largely unconsciously) conditioned by monarchical power – or by a one-dimensional model that sees sovereignty as the origin, and law and police as instruments. Things have never been so simple in practice, however. Even the tyrant depends on a large cohort of flatterers and helpers (who hope to benefit, or at least not to get killed), and on armed protection from mortal enemies.

Even in those countries known as “democracies”, people remain in thrall to an elusive image of “the Leader” – the exceptional individual who supposedly knows how to grow the economy and fix our problems. When taken too far, this resembles a cargo cult: one day some rich guy will return with his awesome merch and give us our mojo back.

Whether you love or hate political leaders, look in the mirror ask why you feel that way. Which political nightmare has been troubling you most lately?