The fall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria was a reminder of how precarious the dictator's job is. In "How Tyrants Fall: And How Nations Survive", recently published in English and named one of the best books of 2024 by The Economist, Marcel Dirsus recalls that since World War II, more than two out of three autocrats, after leaving power, ended their lives in exile, in prison or were assassinated. "This is the treadmill of dictators: once you get on it, by taking power, you have to stay, because even voluntarily leaving it is very risky", warns the German political scientist.
Based on data and history, his book also provides a real guide to how nations can get rid of dictators. In an interview with the French daily L'Express, Marcel Dirsus explains why dictators like Vladimir Putin have every reason to sleep badly at night and to distrust their loved ones even more than their own people. According to him, history also proves that Bashar Assad has no reason to feel safe in Moscow. On the other hand, let's not be too optimistic about Syria: between 1950 and 2012 only 20% of the overthrows of autocrats have led to democracy...
L'EXPRESS: You say that even the most powerful autocrats in the world are condemned to live in fear. Of what?
MARCEL DIRSUS: In democracies, we often think of dictators as omnipotent. We imagine them in their palaces achieving what they want with a simple snap of their fingers. In reality, no leader has ever possessed truly absolute power. Even tyrants have to rely on others to stay in power. They face two major difficulties. First, they are in great danger if they lose power. Everything will be fine for Emmanuel Macron the day he leaves the Elysee Palace. He will enjoy life, he will give lectures. On the other hand, Vladimir Putin's fate is completely different. According to the data, 69% of dictators who leave power end up in prison, are forced into exile, or are killed. Statistically, they cannot abandon their position and must do everything to stay in it. Because otherwise they risk their freedom and even their lives. Second, where democracies mobilize a significant part of the population, an autocratic regime like Kim Jong-un's in North Korea is supported by a hundred families. This may seem convenient, because you can afford to ignore the rest of your population. But, on the other hand, it is enough to lose the support of a few people to be in danger of being overthrown. A dictator also never knows who is really with him or against him. He moves in a fog and ignores the loyalties of those around him because they cannot express themselves freely, because they do not want to end up in a gulag or in a coffin. If you think about it carefully, being a dictator is a terrifying situation. You can lose power at any time, everyone around you is a potential threat, and if you are impeached or resign, you can die.
L"EXPRESS: Bashar Assad fled to Russia, where Putin's regime promised him protection. Is this a good strategy?
M. DIRSUS: Every fifth dictator who loses power is forced to go abroad. But Assad will not find peace in Moscow. Exile is a very risky option. It is already very difficult to find a suitable place. You need to have a strong and stable state that is ready to accept you. Assad could only find refuge in an authoritarian state. In a democracy, voters are no longer ready to accept a foreign leader known primarily for using chemical weapons against children and women. In addition, Assad needed a dictatorship that was strong enough not to capitulate to international pressure. This has happened several times in the past. After leaving power in 2003, Liberian despot Charles Taylor went into exile in Nigeria. But his luxurious life there did not last long. Under pressure from humanitarian organizations and liberal democracies, he was sentenced to 50 years in prison.
Also, Assad is not even 60 years old, and his family is with him. So he needs a stable dictatorship, because we have seen tyrants seek refuge in another authoritarian state before it transforms into a democracy. This happened with the former president of Chad, Hissène Habré, who went into exile in Senegal in 1990. And few people on earth have as many enemies as Assad. Which means that the likelihood of someone trying to persecute him or harm his life is very high. Even an agreed retirement is by no means a guarantee. In Kazakhstan, Nazarbayev resigned in 2019, going so far as to rename the capital Astana after his first name. That didn’t stop him from being ousted by his successor, who was also considered a fool, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. If an autocrat resigns, he has to find someone strong enough to protect him and guarantee him immunity, but not so strong that he overshadows him. It is very difficult. And the new leader will inevitably be suspicious of him. This is what I call the dictator's treadmill. Once you get on it, by taking power, you are forced to stay, because even getting off it voluntarily is very risky.
L"EXPRESS: For an autocrat, in your opinion, the danger comes much more from his entourage than from the population. Why?
M. DIRSUS: 65% of deposed autocrats were overthrown by people inside the regime. Dictators are obsessed with the masses. But in reality, the biggest threat is the people in their inner circle, the people who smile at them. This is explained by the structure of the authoritarian regime. Because power is so centralized and involves a small number of people, this proximity also allows members of the regime to be able to overthrow the dictator. In Syria, Assad was overthrown by a rebellion. For a long time, he was able to rule without caring about his population. In this case, instead of funding hospitals, you are forced to reward the people who allow you to stay in power, namely the economic elites, the army and the security services. This ends up alienating a large part of your fellow citizens. We saw how quickly the HTS rebels were able to advance because Syrians were delighted with the fall of Assad. A dictator can certainly contain popular discontent through ruthless repression, but in this case he must also be careful to separate the armed forces and the security services, because they pose the greatest risk. However, by separating the command centers, you inevitably weaken your army. In addition, Assad has long benefited from the support of foreign autocracies, Russia and Iran. As long as people think that the rule of a dictator is inevitable, they will not oppose him head-on because no one wants to die. But once these elements supporting the regime start to crumble, perceptions change and the dictator is done for. In the case of Syria, Russia and Iran had other priorities and the Syrian soldiers realized that Assad could eventually be overthrown. So they did not fight for him because they had no ideological commitment to his regime.
L"EXPRESS: What are the risks of a dictator being assassinated?
M. DIRSOUS: The risk of assassination has decreased. At the beginning of the 20th century, the chance of a leader, democratic or autocratic, being assassinated was one in one hundred. Today it is below 0.3% because the security services are better at preventing this threat. Furthermore, a democratic leader must interact with the voters. But Putin doesn't need to interact with ordinary Russians, because elections hardly matter. He can afford to keep a great distance from his population. Let's note, however, that if technology has made it possible to better preserve the lives of leaders, it could again put them at risk. Drones will not only change wars, but also the security of heads of state. A dictator like Putin certainly doesn't mix with crowds, but he always has to move. Drones, however, allow you to target a person from a distance. This changes everything, because before, if you wanted to kill an autocrat, you sacrificed your life. This is certainly an additional concern for a dictator.
L"EXPRESS: According to political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, peaceful demonstrations require at least 3.5% of the population to mobilize in order to overthrow a regime...
M. DIRSUS: If you get enough people on the streets, you can force a dictator to make a difficult decision: whether to use violence or not. If he doesn't suppress the protests, he looks weak. If he uses violence, he risks a backlash, bringing even more people to the streets. So for him, it's a choice between the plague and cholera. He can order his army to kill everyone, but the army doesn't necessarily follow his orders. That's why so many peaceful mass protests have succeeded. Yet, as we saw in Syria, Assad has managed to stay in power for more than a decade through repression. Furthermore, Chenoweth and Stephan's data show that 57 percent of peaceful protests that have toppled a regime have ultimately led to democracy. Whereas for regime change involving violence, it's less than 6 percent. That makes sense. Because if you get a significant number of citizens involved, you already have legitimacy. A coup can be carried out with a very small number of participants, but it will lack popular legitimacy. An uprising requires more people, but it can also succeed in overthrowing a government with relatively few fighters. And if, as in the case of HTS in Syria, you come to power by force, why not structure the new regime in a way that benefits you?
L"EXPRESS: For decades, the regime in North Korea has inflicted many disasters on its population, including terrible famine. All you need is a satellite image to see the huge difference in prosperity between the north and the south of the Korean peninsula. How can we explain that this dictatorship continues to exist?
M. DIRSUS: North Korea is an interesting case. The level of centralization of power is incredible, even compared to other dictatorships. Kim Jong-un can actually effectively ignore a significant part of his population. North Koreans are unable to protest, it is extremely difficult for them to access a foreign source of information. Everything in their existence depends on power: work, food... The repressive apparatus is very brutal. Therefore, the risk of opposing power is exceptional. But what really distinguishes the regime in Pyongyang is its ability to ensure continuity. The "eternal president of the republic" Kim Il-sung handed over power to his son Kim Jong-il, before his grandson Kim Jong-un continued the lineage. Personal dictatorships are very fragile after the death of the leader, because he sought to maximize his personal power to the detriment of institutions. When you are an autocrat, you do not want competing power. Therefore, the entire system risks collapsing when you disappear. We have seen it many times in history. But the North Korean regime has succeeded in this succession twice, even though it is not a monarchy. Bashar al-Assad also succeeded his father after he was put in power because his older brother was no longer alive. The Syrian elites did not support him because of his leadership qualities, but because it was in their interest for his father's regime to continue, providing them with opportunities for power and corruption.
L"EXPRESS: Isn't the strongest system the one-party dictatorship, like we see in China, with a communist party that dreams of celebrating the centenary of the People's Republic in 2049?
M. DIRSUS: Let's first note that these systems seem solid until they collapse, as we saw with the fall of the Soviet Union. Many experts also believed that Assad could stay in power, and today they look like idiots. Therefore, it is very difficult, from the outside, to understand what is really happening. But indeed, one-party regimes are more durable than personal dictatorships. The Chinese system has institutions for managing succession. Even if power is centralized, it can be based on an organization much broader than a personal regime, such as Putin's in Russia. In this way, Xi Jinping does not have to worry about what happens in a village far from Beijing. The Communist Party has a well-established hierarchy that covers the entire territory. But we also know that these one-party systems tend to degenerate into personal dictatorships. And today we see the extent to which Xi Jinping has concentrated more and more power in his hands. This is rational from his point of view. But this is not necessarily a good thing for the sustainability of the Chinese system.
L"EXPRESS: How do you see the future of Vladimir Putin? For the moment, it seems impossible for him to voluntarily give up power...
M. DIRSUS: If Putin is ever toppled, the most likely scenario is that it will be by members of the regime. It has become extremely difficult for the average Russian to take to the streets to protest. A peaceful opposition would be the best scenario for a democratic transition, but it is highly unlikely because the regime has done its job well. Therefore, the most dangerous group for Putin is also the most powerful in Russia, namely the security services, intelligence and the army. Putin fears a coup. Therefore, he divided the army or the security services, going so far as to encourage parallel organizations, such as the Wagner Group, even if it meant a loss of effectiveness, as we see with the war in Ukraine. But the monster he created, Yevgeny Prigozhin, almost brought him down. If half a dozen people in Moscow had made different decisions in June 2023, Putin would be dead. Often, when you are abroad, you have very limited influence on the development of a dictatorship. But in the case of Russia, we have a huge lever to influence Putin: Ukraine. When dictators lose a war, they often risk losing power. There is no need to invade the country with an army. A defeated autocrat is weakened in his regime. If more and more Russian soldiers die in Ukraine, officials in Moscow may tell themselves that the game is not worth the effort and that it is better to save the system by getting rid of Putin. But the latter also has a means of blackmail. Western countries really fear the scenario in which Russia, undermined in Ukraine, uses nuclear weapons. That would be very risky for Putin, but he could find himself in a situation where the alternative would be even more dangerous for him personally. We in the West therefore have considerable means to put pressure on Putin, but we are also afraid to use them because of this potential risk of nuclear escalation.
L"EXPRESS: Let us not think that the fall of a dictator automatically leads to a brighter future for a country...
M. DIRSOUS: I do not want to sound too pessimistic. When dictators fall, it is often chaotic. The situation does not necessarily improve or fluctuates significantly. Tunisia managed to achieve success after the Arab Spring. But a decade after the fall of Ben Ali, the regime of Kais Saied has once again concentrated enormous amounts of power. However, time is needed to make a proper assessment. Perhaps the years of freedom of the Tunisians laid the foundations for a future democratic, liberal and prosperous Tunisia? History is not linear. Similarly, in Syria, the fall of Assad is likely to lead to a very complicated situation. But in the long run, Arab countries may move toward more democracy. We don't know anything about that yet. What is certain is that all dictatorships are much more fragile than we think, and that they all have something to worry about if we trust the numbers.