AI Says...
Dictatorship is not merely a machine of repression. It is also a laboratory of compromise. It creates conditions in which survival—moral, professional, and sometimes even physical—depends on an insidious choice: to embrace the hand of power, or to disappear. In this closed system, one doesn’t just live with the regime; one lives through it.
1. The Mechanics of Compromise
A dictatorship is sustained not only by fear, but by a form of adhesion—often tacit, often resigned—from a significant portion of the population. This support is less a matter of conviction than of compromise.
From the very first rungs of society, authoritarian systems pose a moral dilemma:
“Do you wish to exist within this system? Then show your loyalty.”
Survival Compromise
For civil servants, teachers, small business owners, journalists, and countless others, surviving often means complying with absurd rules, repeating official lies, and adhering to unspoken expectations. Refusing to applaud might cost a career. Questioning the narrative might mean losing housing or social benefits. This is the minimal compromise: staying silent, looking away, avoiding dangerous topics.
Opportunistic Compromise
Then there’s another level: those who thrive. These individuals not only accept the system but actively serve it. They become propagandists, regime-linked entrepreneurs, official ideologues. They enjoy the spoils of state largesse, closed markets, rigged appointments, and monopoly rents.
Their compromise is no longer passive. It is active, conscious, and at times proudly declared. They become the material and moral scaffolding of the regime.
2. The Trump Case: Blackmail as Compromise
One might think such mechanisms are limited to formal dictatorships. But certain populist leaders within democracies exploit the same levers.
Donald Trump, for example, applies a logic of conditional submission to both economics and politics. He does not govern under a republican contract, but rather by a mafioso logic:
“Here are the tariffs. Here are the budget cuts. Here is the end of federal subsidies. If you want to breathe… come talk to me.”
From China to Mexico, the EU, and even American corporations, all are forced to kiss the ring to survive. Within the states he controls, it is the obedient governors who receive federal aid. Internationally, those who align with Washington’s dictates are granted negotiation. The rest are economically strangled.
This is modern compromise: it doesn’t require burning books or jailing dissidents. It demands flattery, concession, alignment. It is more subtle—but just as corrosive to democracy.
3. Seeing the Good in a Dictatorship: The Ultimate Moral Compromise
The gravest compromise lies in our perception. When we choose to admire a dictatorship’s economic success, highways, stability, or technological progress—without acknowledging the blood, silence, and torture on which it rests—we engage in moral compromise.
“But Franco rebuilt Spain.”“Pinochet saved the Chilean economy.”“Saddam kept order.”
Each time we praise a dictatorship’s efficiency without mentioning the dead, the disappeared, and the exiled, we erase victims in favor of a managerial fantasy of power.
This logic is even more apparent today with figures like Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Mohammed bin Salman, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. They justify their grip on power with grand strategy, national revival, or regional stability. And their defenders—even in liberal democracies—willfully ignore the jailed journalists, oppressed minorities, and murdered opposition figures.
4. The Complicit Diaspora: Patriotism that Blinds
A special case is that of diasporas. Whether Iranian, Algerian, Russian, Turkish, or Syrian, some are driven by a nostalgic patriotism that leads them to minimize or excuse the regime’s brutality.
Some members—even safely ensconced in democracies—share regime propaganda, attack dissidents, or organize fundraising campaigns “for the homeland” without questioning who truly benefits.
Others adopt a quieter compromise: avoiding criticism, steering clear of difficult conversations, and preferring the image of a strong homeland over the reality of a shattered people.
Yet, when one lives beyond the reach of censorship and fear, remaining silent or offering legitimacy becomes an even graver compromise—because it is voluntary. It is no longer survival that drives it. It is forgetfulness.
Conclusion: To Resist Is to Refuse the Outstretched Hand
The dictator’s hand comes full of promises: safety, comfort, identity, national pride. But to grasp it is to relinquish a part of one’s inner freedom. Those who refuse that hand—whether in exile or underground—often pay a heavy price.
But they preserve something greater: dignity.
As long as we understand compromise not as a personal failing but as a systemic mechanism, we are better equipped to resist its seduction.
Related Posts
