Personalist Rule

Personalist rule, or one-man rule, is a form of autocracy where power is heavily concentrated in the hands of a single individual or a small elite, to such an extent that the ruler is often seen as the embodiment of the regime itself. This type of dictatorship has become increasingly prevalent, rising from 28% of authoritarian regimes in 1988 to 52% by 2010, making it the most common form of authoritarianism.

Key features

Personalist regimes are characterized by a dominant position of the leader, who holds substantial personal discretion and control over key levers of power. Their institutions are often weak, offering minimal constraints on the ruler's authority. Power in these regimes is concentrated in the executive branch, supported by subjugated government branches, with a marked absence of effective checks-and-balances.

The ruler's grip on power is maintained through informal rules, often concealed behind a façade of formal norms. Personal loyalty and direct access to the leader, rather than institutional roles, become the primary basis for power. The inner circle of a personalist regime is typically small and closely tied to the dictator through personal connections, which are then extended via patronage and clientelism, drawing from kin, co-ethnic groups, and loyal followers. Succession in personalist regimes is often uncertain, though informally regulated by the dictator-dominated ruling coalition. Elections, if held, are neither free nor fair, as political power is not derived from an electorate.

Relationship to other concepts

Personalist rule overlaps with and is frequently compared to several other concepts of authoritarian governance:

Tyranny

Classical political theorists from Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle consistently understood tyranny as an unrestrained and arbitrary rule, typically repressive and morally repugnant. A tyrant governs solely for personal benefit, contrasting with a king who aims for the common good. Tyranny is considered illegitimate and illegal, operating without popular consent, and is defined by fear, brutality, and arbitrary decisions. The concept carries a strong negative moral judgment, linking it to the "corruption in the soul of the tyrant".

Modern political science often uses "personalist rule" to refer to historical and contemporary regimes that align with the classical model of tyranny, especially those where "dictators… have concentrated powers in their own hands". Scholars like Daniel Chirot suggest that the classical model of tyranny is particularly relevant for understanding 20th-century African personalist dictatorships. Therefore, personalist rule captures many features of tyranny in a post-monarchical context, referring to rulers who are "unconstrained by legal checks and balances of power".

Despotism

Despotism is a term that refers to regimes wielding "absolute, arbitrary power for their personal gain, disregarding the needs of society". While it overlaps with notions of absolute power and arbitrary rule by a single ruler, its historical usage could, at times, denote legitimate rule, even if it was unchallenged and arbitrary. The term despotēs originally signified a master's power over slaves and emerged in the Greco-Persian wars to denigrate the Asian enemy. However, by the 18th century, thinkers like Montesquieu popularized despotism as a corrupted form of rule sustained by fear, leading to societal decline.

Like tyranny, despotism has been commonly used interchangeably with absolutism and tyranny since the 18th century, blurring precise conceptual distinctions. Personalist rule shares the arbitrary nature and potential for ruling for "personal gain" associated with despotism, especially in its pejorative modern sense.

Absolutism

Absolutism is a political system where a single ruler, typically a monarch, holds all governmental power, with their decisions not subject to civil or positive laws. These rulers often claim divine right to rule, as exemplified by Louis XIV's declaration "L'état, c'est moi". While absolute monarchs are unrestrained by the law of men, they are theoretically "expected to uphold natural law or God’s natural order". Jean Bodin distinguished absolutism from arbitrary government by emphasizing respect for fundamental state laws and subjects' property.

The main contrast between absolutism and personalist rule lies in the source and nature of constraints. Absolute monarchy operates within a framework of established (though often unwritten) rules and institutions that legitimize their authority and provide for stable succession. The "absolutist bias" of earlier scholars sometimes led to its application to personalist rule and totalitarianism. However, in personalist rule, institutions are weakened and de-institutionalized, contrasting with the more structured, albeit legally unrestrained, nature of absolutism.

Patrimonialism and neo-patrimonialism

Max Weber's concept of patrimonialism describes a type of traditional rule where a polity is treated as the ruler's personal property, and all power relations are personal. It involves an administrative staff, distinct from simpler familial systems, and the ruler maintains dominance over this group, often through the bestowal of gifts, benefices, or offices in exchange for loyalty and service (known as prebendalism). In this system, the distinction between public and private resources is blurred, or even non-existent.

Neo-patrimonialism, derived from Weber's concept, applies to modernizing political systems where patrimonial power structures penetrate legal-rational bureaucratic systems. While the distinction between public and private formally exists, it is often not respected. It encompasses elements of patronage, systemic corruption, kleptocracy, clientelism, and nepotism.

Personalist rule is closely related to neo-patrimonialism, often being mistakenly equated with it. However, personalism is primarily considered a regime type, whereas neo-patrimonialism describes a practice or form of rulership. Personalist regimes are often characterized by patrimonialism as a defining feature, where the state increasingly resembles the ruler’s personal patrimony, leading to weak institutions and rampant clientelism.

Sultanism and neo-sultanism

Sultanism is an extreme subtype of Weberian patrimonialism, characterized by barely restrained, highly centralized, and arbitrary leadership, dependent on armed forces. The ruler, though derived from tradition, is no longer beholden to it or to customary elite hierarchies.

Neo-sultanism, coined by Juan José Linz, (but often listed withouth the neo-) is a concept derived from neo-patrimonialism that classifies a system of supreme, unrestrained power in modernizing political systems. It is maintained through a mixture of fear and rewards, rather than tradition, ideology, or charisma. Neo-sultanism is an ideal-type used to classify political regimes, while Weberian sultanism classifies forms of rulership. It is characterized by consolidated personalist rule, dominant patronage networks, personal control over military and security services, erosion of judicial/political institutions, a tendency to establish dynasties, opportunistic manipulation of ideologies, and personality cults.

Personalist rule is strongly influenced by and overlaps with neo-sultanism, reflecting the process of "sultanization," where a ruler gains undisputed dominance, erodes restraints, and expands systemic corruption through patronal networks. This process renders the public sphere increasingly personal and hollows out state institutions.

Origins and causes (personalization)

The emergence of personalist rule often stems from a process called personalization, which refers to the series of actions taken by a leader to consolidate power within a political party or regime. This process can occur in various regime types, including democracies (leading to democratic backsliding or executive aggrandizement) or already authoritarian regimes (leading to autocratic consolidation).

Scholars initially believed that personalization was structurally driven. However, it is now understood that rulers actively pursue personalization to reduce their dependence on the groups that helped them seize power, thus preventing these groups from replacing them. This process involves weakening the cohesion and organizational capacity of the ruling coalition by rotating, exiling, purging, and replacing members to:

1. Increase personal loyalty.
2. Tie members to the ruler in a patron-client relationship, cutting them off from independent support bases.
3. Impede collective action (e.g., voting out the leader or staging a coup).

Personalization is often gradual, and other factions within the ruling coalition may fail to counter the dictator's moves in time due to imperfect information. A critical threshold is reached when the ruling coalition can no longer credibly threaten to oust or veto the dictator. This transformation from a contested dictatorship to an established personalist regime is often observed shortly after a leader comes to power, as they use this strategic window to personalize.

Consequences and impact

Personalist dictatorships exhibit distinct behavioral patterns compared to other authoritarian regimes, often leading to significant negative outcomes:

• Repression: Repression is typically more severe in personalist regimes due to the lack of institutional constraints on the leader's power. The leader's direct control over security forces enables targeted repression, purges, torture, mass killings, and arbitrary detentions against opponents. Higher levels of personalization correlate with increased repression and decreased respect for human rights.
• Conflict: Personalist regimes are prone to both internal and external conflicts. Internally, power concentration can lead to factionalism and instability as rivals compete for influence. Externally, personalist leaders may initiate aggressive foreign policies or wars to distract from domestic issues or consolidate power, increasing the likelihood of international conflicts.
• Economic Performance and Corruption: These regimes often perform poorly economically, with state resources used for personal gain, leading to inefficient governance and stagnation. Corruption becomes systemic as leaders use patronage networks to maintain loyalty, diverting resources from public goods and development projects. This behavior, sometimes termed kleptocracy, prioritizes personal enrichment over institutional governance. Personalist dictators may hoard resources and engage in predatory behavior due to short time horizons, as they lack institutionalized mechanisms for power turnover. This systemic corruption undermines state capacity.
• Decision-Making: Personalist rulers are known to make erratic and unwise policy decisions based on their whims, leading to unpredictable outcomes, as there are often no challengers or advisors willing to provide candid feedback. This also fosters false reporting and politically motivated management of public issues, such as disease outbreaks.

Classification and measurement

Scholars use various criteria to classify personalist regimes. Juan J. Linz's work on (neo-)sultanism was influential in highlighting personalized rule. The Geddes, Wright & Frantz (GWF) typology identifies personalist regimes as a distinct subtype of authoritarianism, differentiated by the leader's concentration of power at the expense of supporters and weak institutionalization. GWF uses eight specific criteria to measure a "latent measure of personalism" (LMP), indicating a regime's degree of personalism.

Later approaches view personalism as both a regime type and a continuous dimension present in all political regimes. For instance, Alexander Baturo's approach distinguishes personalism (one-man rule, power concentration) from patrimonialism (weak institutions, clientelism, state as personal property) as two partly overlapping characteristics of personalist regimes.

Examples

Notable examples of personalist rulers include Joseph Mobutu (Zaire/DRC), Francisco Macías Nguema and Teodoro Obiang (Equatorial Guinea), and the Somoza family (Nicaragua). In contemporary times, North Korea under Kim Il-Sung and his successors is considered a "poster child of contemporary dynastic tyranny". Leaders like Mao Zedong, Stalin, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping are also considered to embody highly personalist and brutal rule.

Methodological issues

Studying personalist rule presents several challenges. Operationalization can be difficult due to the ambiguity in distinguishing personalist rule from military rule, especially when a leader has a military background but functions as an individual leader. There's also a "static bias" in classifications, where a regime, once classified as personalist, remains so, even if the degree of personalism fluctuates over its lifespan, for instance, after succession events (de-personalization). Furthermore, a common "absolutist bias" can lead to overstating the leader's actual absolute power. The reductionist tendency to equate personalization solely with non-institutionalism overlooks the complex functions of hollowed-out institutions and the nuanced leader-inner circle dynamics.