Hitler's Germany and Putin's Russia: Selectorate Theory

Introduction

The twentieth and twenty-first centuries bear witness to the emergence of diverse political systems across the world. Two leaders who made profound impacts on their respective countries and beyond were Adolf Hitler of Germany and Vladimir Putin of Russia. Hitler, leading Germany in the 1930s, created a totalitarian regime marked by intense nationalism and militarism. Putin, assuming power in Russia in the early 2000s, presided over a quasi-authoritarian state, managing to maintain his rule to the present day. While separated by time, geography, and historical context, their rise to power presents intriguing similarities that demand in-depth comparative analysis.

Exploring the factors that led to the ascent of such authoritarian leaders is a valuable pursuit within the field of comparative politics (O'Neil, 2015). It not only provides insights into the political trajectories of Germany and Russia, but also sheds light on the broader phenomena of authoritarianism and political power consolidation. This paper applies selectorate theory to explain the similarities in Hitler's and Putin's rise to power.

The following sections first review the existing literature on the rise to power of Hitler and Putin and on the application of selectorate theory. The paper then applies this theoretical framework to the cases of Germany and Russia and derives hypotheses. This is followed by a discussion of methodology, presentation of the case studies, and a comparative analysis.

Literature Review

Existing research on Hitler's rise to power covers numerous aspects, including the socio-economic conditions of the Weimar Republic, Hitler's charismatic leadership, and the ideological appeal of Nazism (Kershaw, 2008; Shirer, 1960). The economic hardships caused by the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression, the political instability of the Weimar Republic, and the appeal of Hitler's promises of national rejuvenation have been identified as the primary reasons for his ascent (Simms, 2019; Svolik, 2012). Similarly, studies on Putin's rise to power emphasize the chaotic transition period following the Soviet Union's dissolution, Putin's image as a stabilizing force, and his control over key economic sectors (Goldman, 2008; McFaul, 2018; Zygar, 2016). Putin's centralization of power, the nationalization of industry, and the manipulation of nationalist sentiments have been highlighted as his principal tools for political longevity (Gessen, 2012; Zygar, 2016).

Despite the depth of these investigations, there is a notable gap in the literature: the application of selectorate theory to explain Hitler's and Putin's political trajectories. Selectorate theory, proposed by Bueno de Mesquita and Smith (2011), provides a compelling framework for understanding political leadership and policy choices. The theory posits that the size and composition of the "selectorate" — the group of people whose support is necessary for a leader to gain and maintain power — significantly influences leaders' policy choices.

This paper seeks to fill this gap by applying selectorate theory to both Hitler's Germany and Putin's Russia. In doing so, it provides a nuanced understanding of the political dynamics that facilitated their rise to power and contributes to the broader understanding of authoritarian leadership and the mechanisms through which authoritarian leaders come to and sustain power.

Theoretical Framework

Selectorate theory serves as the framework for this paper. It provides a unique lens through which to explore the strategies of political leaders, especially in non-democratic settings. The theory rests on the idea that political leaders, regardless of the type of political system they operate in, are motivated by the desire to gain and retain power.

A key component of the theory is the "selectorate" — the group of people whose support is vital for a leader to assume and maintain power. This selectorate is further divided into the "real selectorate," those with a say in the choice of leadership, and the "winning coalition," the subset whose support ensures a leader's political survival (Bueno de Mesquita & Smith, 2011). The size and nature of these groups significantly influence a leader's actions, as leaders implement policies designed to satisfy both the selectorate and the winning coalition.

Applying this theory to Hitler's Germany and Putin's Russia, this paper hypothesizes that both leaders aimed to expand their winning coalitions through strategies that appealed to these groups. These strategies likely involved consolidating control over domestic political systems, implementing economic policies to improve living standards, and pursuing aggressive foreign policies to tap into nationalist sentiments.

Case Studies

The Weimar Republic, established in 1919 following World War I, was plagued by multiple attempted coups, political assassinations, and severe hyperinflation in the early 1920s (Shirer, 1960). Its proportional representation system resulted in a fragmented party landscape with no single party able to gain a majority in the Reichstag. Amidst this political turmoil, the Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler, gained popularity by exploiting widespread dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic. Propagating a nationalist, anti-Semitic, and anti-communist ideology, Hitler promised stability and prosperity — promises that resonated with a population burdened by political uncertainty and economic hardship (Shirer, 1960).

After World War I, Germany was laden with reparations payments that severely strained the economy. The Great Depression of 1929 further aggravated the crisis, causing industrial production to decline and unemployment to soar above 30% (Kershaw, 2008). In response, Hitler's economic policies — centered on massive public works projects and military rearmament — played a crucial role in reducing unemployment and reviving the economy. The Reich's success in economic recovery significantly bolstered Hitler's popularity and solidified his control.

The Treaty of Versailles left Germany severely weakened, imposing restrictions on its military capabilities, enforcing harsh economic penalties, and requiring territorial concessions (Shirer, 1960). This sense of national humiliation gave rise to nationalist movements, including National Socialism. Hitler's aggressive foreign policy — encompassing the annexation of neighboring territories and a campaign for Lebensraum (living space) in Eastern Europe — resonated with the German public and further solidified his power (Simms, 2019).

This expansion exacerbated tensions between Germany and the rest of the West. France, the United Kingdom, and Russia viewed a resurgent Germany as a threat — economically, politically, and socially. Hitler's attempts at peaceful resolutions with Western leaders ultimately failed. Tensions escalated until Germany marched on Poland to defend ethnic Germans separated from the mainland, and then into France in what Simms (2019) characterizes as a preemptive strike.

Russia in the 1990s was characterized by political instability, weak governance, and rampant corruption following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The democratic transition was marred by economic hardship and political scandals. Amidst this disorder, Putin, a former KGB officer, was appointed Prime Minister in 1999 and became acting president when Yeltsin resigned later that year. He was elected president in 2000. Putin has since consolidated power through the centralization of authority, suppression of political opposition, and control over the media (Gessen, 2012).

The 2000s marked a significant recovery from the severe economic crisis of the 1990s, which had been characterized by hyperinflation, a sharp drop in GDP, and widespread poverty. Putin's economic policies — including tax reforms, state control of key industries, and a focus on oil and gas exports — led to substantial economic growth and an increase in living standards. This improvement under Putin's leadership solidified his power and popularity (Zygar, 2016).

Post-Soviet Russia was in the process of rebuilding its global influence. The eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union was perceived as a threat by Moscow. Putin's foreign policy sought to counteract this perceived Western encroachment. His assertive foreign policy moves — including military interventions in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 — were generally popular among the Russian population (McFaul, 2018). Although these actions resulted in significant international backlash and economic sanctions, they arguably further solidified Putin's domestic support.

The annexation of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine since 2014 further exacerbated tensions between Russia and the West. Putin framed his actions as a necessary defense of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, who faced hostility following the political upheaval that ousted the elected president in 2014. Crimeans voted to join Russia, in part to escape an increasingly hostile political environment in Ukraine.

Conclusion

This paper has identified significant parallels in the rise to power of Hitler and Putin. Despite the distinct historical and cultural contexts, both leaders capitalized on periods of political instability, implemented policies that promoted economic recovery, and pursued aggressive foreign policies to boost their domestic support. These similarities are well explained through the lens of selectorate theory.

This analysis underscores the utility of selectorate theory in understanding the rise of authoritarian leadership across diverse contexts. It provides a valuable theoretical framework that illuminates how leaders in volatile political environments can secure and maintain power. In environments characterized by high levels of instability, economic hardship, and societal polarization, leaders must secure the backing of their winning coalition to obtain and maintain power. The utility of selectorate theory in comparative politics lies in its capacity to apply predictive principles about leaders' behavior based on the structure of their political support. The theory also helps explain the durability of authoritarian regimes even in the face of economic hardships, international sanctions, or widespread dissent — in essence, it decodes the seeming paradoxes of authoritarian resilience and policy choices.

Future research could explore the application of selectorate theory to other instances of authoritarian leadership, such as Kim Jong-un's North Korea or Xi Jinping's China. Further studies could examine how selectorate dynamics change over time and in response to external pressures such as economic sanctions or military threats.

Bueno de Mesquita, B., & Smith, A. (2011). The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics. New York: PublicAffairs.

Gessen, M. (2012). The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin. New York: Riverhead Books.

Goldman, M. I. (2008). Petrostate: Putin, Power, and the New Russia. Oxford University Press.

Kershaw, I. (2008). Hitler: A Biography. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

McFaul, M. (2018). From Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin's Russia. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

O'Neil, P. H. (2015). Essentials of Comparative Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Shirer, W. L. (1960). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Simms, B. (2019). Hitler: A Global Biography. London: Allen Lane.

Svolik, M. (2012). The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zygar, M. (2016). All the Kremlin's Men: Inside the Court of Vladimir Putin. New York: PublicAffairs.