Populist charismatic dictators: the cases of Stalin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh

Populist-Charismatic dictators: the cases of Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi-Minh

There has been a wide debate concerning the elements which brought to power dictators such as Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, or Ho Chi Minh. Some have argued that in fact they were the example of democracy or the choice of their peoples. Other haves considered that in fact their rule represented the result of the violent takeovers of power. Regardless of the means through which they reached powers, such dictators held on to their power through different techniques and strategies which manipulated the masses and allowed them to gain control, not in a physical manner only, but also through the common perceptions of the people. Therefore, the paper will argue that the rule of Stalin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh represents in fact the result of a combination between the charisma of the leader and the specific planning of the state apparatus.

The rule of the three leaders signified almost the same thing for Russia, China, and North Vietnam. The cult of personality was and still is to some people the most significant example of the impact these leaders had on the population and on the history of their countries. However, this aspect of their rule represented the possibility to adapt a personality to a state apparatus and develop it to serve the interests of power. As a result, even today there are persons in Russia, China, and Vietnam who regret these dictators, persons who are still embedded in the cult of personality which surrounded them.

The notion of charisma in politics is very important. First and foremost, politicians must attract the public and the voters. It is of little importance the actual program one political man promotes. His success is in the end dependent on the way in which he is able to deliver his message. In this sense, there is a special need for a quality which can determine the difference between people with ideas and politicians. In this sense, the definition of charisma is that of "as a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or exceptional powers or qualities." Therefore, the issue of charisma is a matter of natural quality; it cannot be induced; only developed. On this premises many dictators based their actions and activities.

There are several aspects which transform and individual into a leader. In fact, dictators are leaders as well because they are the result of the people's choice, regardless of the conditions in which this choice was made. Therefore, an analysis of leadership is useful for portraying the way in which dictators managed to take hold of power. One aspect in this regard is the capacity of the leader to "perceive in group situations what makes them somewhat different from previously experienced ones which they may greatly resemble. Without such ability, a leader is likely to rely on the repetition of policy responses that have proved successful in the past but may not be so in the present because they fail to take account of the elements of novelty in the situation currently confronting the political community."

Stalin, Mao, as well as Ho Chi Minh were such persons. The perspective that can be considered in this sense is that of the political doctrine they advocated. All of them promoted a different style of action and politics, one which appealed to the public also because it was new and never discussed before. For Stalin the era of communism was not a new aspect of politics. He had struggled before to defeat the resistance created against the new regime of the soviets. However, the actual elements of politics he promoted, more precisely the possibilities the U.S.S.R. might have should it embarked in an endeavor that would establish pure socialism made his opinion heard and his voice as well.

Mao Zedong from this point-of-view was similar to Stalin because he offered the Chinese the possibility to end their state of submission and played a crucial card for the mentality of the people: the national unity card. This enabled him to address the public from a different stand as compared to any other political instrument promoted before. The events would be positive for the dictator precisely because he offered something new to the people. Combined with the elements of the communist society and economy, Mao's impact was extremely important.

Ho Chi Minh was above all a dictator who took action instead of using only declarative speeches. He too speculated the patriotism card and the rebellion of the anti-western influence. This was an important aspect of the way in which Vietnam conducted its foreign policy especially taking into account the traditional history of the country and its colonial past.

Another important aspect of dictators is that they appeal to the cultural heritage of their own country. The difference between a democratic leader and a despot or dictator also consists in the fact that while the ones from the first category also propose as main ideas economic and social changes in a manner as for the institutions to benefit, the ones in the second category focus on the nationalistic view of power and on the way in which national culture can be reconsidered in a superior manner. More precisely, the fact that all dictators come into being in a time of chaos and distress represents the proof of the fact that the nationalistic approach is the most suited for the gaining of power

The examples of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Ho Chi Minh point out these obvious facts related to the idea that indeed the charisma of the dictators is interlinked and a sine qua non-condition for the establishment and development of dictatorial regimes.

The rise to power of all these three regimes follows a particular life circle of the dictatorial regime. This is an important aspect because it comes to prove the fact that the means through which the three dictators came to power had been staged ex-ante and were not particularly the sole result of their charisma. As pointed out by Hertzler, the first stage includes the period of chaos and depression. In this case, Stalin came to power at the moment in which Lenin's theories and practices were more and more popular but at the same time in a moment in which Russia was facing disturbing political and social distress. Despite the positive historical position and "although he had won considerable support and even popularity inside party circles during the early post-Lenin years, Stalin never enjoyed a prestige even remotely comparable to Lenin's." Therefore, it can be said that despite the charismatic nature of the Russian leader, he failed to compete to an individual who had first promoted the U.S.S.R. Thus, indeed, there was a need for an increased propaganda and state measures in order for Stalin to ensure himself the reins of power in the eyes of the population.

The measures taken by Stalin were rather diverse and included in the first instance the economic sphere. Thus, "reporting in December 1927 to the Fifteenth Party Congress, which sealed the Left's defeat, he recalled that in introducing the NEP Lenin had posed the question of Kto-kogo (who will vanquish whom?) in the economy -- socialism or private capital? The "who-whom" question had since been resolved in the trade sphere, he said, and now must be resolved in production as well. Softly and by indirection, these words tolled the death knell for the NEP." The New Economic Policy would have a huge impact on the way in which people would come to view Stalin. Taking into account the fact that the economic situation of the Russian people had been suffering, the reform of the land or the collectivization gave the people a chance to hope for the better and created for Stalin a sense of trust in the state he represented.

The case with Mao Zedong was somewhat different because his peasant origins had automatically influenced a myth that would later be Mao, the great leader. Throughout his life he had suffered from every shortcoming the rest of rural China had experience and the people could immediately identify with his common nature. More precisely, "lacking access to a telephone, a telegraph system, or even a local newspaper, he had to rely on his own devices in shaping his own impressions of the outside world." From this point-of-view the image of Mao was one of a sacrificed man, and the Chinese people identified with this icon because, in their turn, they felt the victims of an unjust world.

The fact that Mao Zedong came from the lower parts of the society and had experienced the same shortcomings as the people did was of great importance. While Stalin had to fight an image already created by Lenin he had to overcome in terms of popularity, Mao had no one to be compared with. His entire personality and especially his family background had announced him as a great ruler in terms of charisma and style of dictatorship.

Ho Chi Minh was for a long time of the most controversial dictators of the world. In this sense, "for westerners Ho Chi Minh has been a figure of some mystery for many years. His death on September 3, 1969 did not end the fascination he holds for people who have found his life enigmatic and his political position unclear." Therefore, it is fair to say that to this day, there are people who more or less worship him and the system he created as a result of his desire for power and supremacy. The power of Ho Chi Minh was his response to the Western world. As he was incarcerated Ho Chi Minh defied the Western world by defending himself and supporting the idea of him being a nationalist. As stated before, the idea of the adherence to a country has always been a successful one because people will always tend to be more responsive in issues such as the national identity or the way in which the colonial powers treated Vietnam in this case.

Ho Chi Minh did not receive his status of being worshiped on a similar basis as the other two examples. Stalin developed his ideas economically, Mao from a nationalistic point-of-view, and Ho from a war line perspective. Thus, he played a significant role in the war in Vietnam both for the negotiation powers he exercised to the fullest, as well as internally where he managed to rally the support of an entire population against what it was considered at the time the Western threat. Through this approach he managed to recreate the sense of unity the people needed as well as their dictator.

One of the most important periods of the rule of dictator is according to Hertzler "the entrenchment." In this sense, "during this period a favorable public opinion is gradually built up by propaganda of all kinds and by education. It is essentially a process of systematic indoctrination." Therefore, it is clear that the dictator cannot hold no to his power without the proper means of the state he created. More precisely, the dictator uses the mechanisms of the state in order to build a strong apparatus not only in the institutional level but also at the level of the common mentality. The dictator is powerless without the support of the people and this popular power cannot be gained but through an indirect control of the masses and of their environment. As Karl Marx pointed out "the real triumph of dictatorship is not to have silenced its foes, but to make them sing its praises." Thus, any dictator must rely on a set of mechanisms that would allow him to get control of the popular psychology.

Stalin was in this sense one of the most important examples. The cult of personality manifested itself at different levels but in Stalin's case it reached the peak. Thus, his attempts to win over popular support led him to speeches in favor of the collectivization process which constantly included the defiance of the West. More precisely, "in the midst of the collectivization drive, (...) Stalin's view of the significance of this drive in its resolution: 'If the confiscation of the land from the landowners was the first step of the October Revolution in the countryside, the changeover to collective farms is the second and, moreover, decisive step, which marks a most important stage in building the foundation of a socialist society in the U.S.S.R." As opposed to the capitalist regimes where private property was the main tool for the economy.