We often discuss situational factors that result in the weakening of Putin’s grip on power,
but it’s been a while since we last talked about such a fundamental concept as legitimacy.
By “legitimacy” here, we don’t mean “legality” or some “rightfulness,” but its basic definition.
Why does Vladimir Putin’s circle continue to think of him as their boss and to follow his orders?
Putin does not govern directly.
Rather, he exerts his influence through a collection of individuals who hold resources such as financial,
military, or administrative power.
He doesn’t have the capability to coerce any of them into compliance.
Legitimacy is not a legal term. It’s really just a belief, this belief underlies the obedience of one group of people to another.
The belief in the president's public support, the belief held by the elite
that it is better to follow the instructions of this older guy than not to do so.
The destruction of this belief is literally synonymous with the loss of power.
Today, we will talk about how this belief is inevitably eroded.
Let’s begin with a somewhat different, yet telling example.
WHY PEOPLE’S LOVE OF MUSK DWINDLES
Have you observed the change in perception of Elon Musk since his takeover of Twitter?
On the surface, he remains the same eccentric billionaire, making controversial decisions, indiscriminately laying off employees,
strutting around the office with a kitchen sink in his arms, and fighting on Twitter.
However, the reaction to his actions has largely shifted from admiration and investment friendliness
to widespread disdain and ridicule.
The story of Elon Musk is the story of how people treat winners, and of how public perception
of your actions depends on whether you succeed or fail.
Here’s what the difference is. For as long as you are successful, as long as everything falls in place for you,
as long as you are King Midas whose touch turns everything into gold, as long as the journey from
an improbable and fanciful idea to a business worth billions takes only five years, as long as you state,
"I will create reusable private rockets, they will be significantly cheaper than what competitors offer and I will earn
a great deal of money from it," and then actually deliver on that statement, earning a substantial profit in the process…
As long as you are thriving, all your quirks, your disregard for rules and even laws, public rudeness, unauthorized calls,
and inexplicable antics will all be perceived by others as revolutionary, innovative, and ingenious.
Even if they cannot explain the correlation between your decision to eliminate bathrooms and to place toilets smack
in the center of the office and a surge in sales, they’ll just chalk it up to the idiosyncrasies of a genius that,
on aggregate, constitute your success.
In the House, M.D. TV series, there is an episode that addresses this topic.
A patient who has been taunted by Dr. House in a particularly toxic manner insists on being treated only by House.
The patient’s rationale is simple: such a jerk can either be a genius or out of work.
For as long as people perceive you as a genius and a winner, they’ll be turning a blind eye to your behavior.
They are more likely to believe in seemingly implausible ideas.
However unscientific your idea of running urban traffic through underground tubes might be and however nonsensical
and revisionist urban studies experts might call it.
How do they compare to Elon Musk? Do they have a net worth of 200 billion?
Well, they better earn it, and then we’ll talk.
What would have happened if Elon Musk purchasing Twitter had resulted in yet another triumph, in enthusiastic advertisers,
new users flocking to the platform, swift resolution of all financial problems the company was facing?
What if all the new changes were praised by the ecstatic public?
In this case, all his shenanigans, from showing up at the office with a kitchen sink to his indiscriminate mass layoffs,
would be met with the same enthusiasm.
People would say, “Look, these slackers have been wasting time for years, overstaffing the company,
creating bonuses and perks for themselves, but never working.
Now a real entrepreneur has come, slammed his fist on the table, and brought order."
But the story of Musk and Twitter is one of a massive failure. In terms of organization, finances, and reputation.
People used to associate Musk making another headline with the next big step in futuristic technology.
But now, whenever they see his name pop up, they anticipate another scandalous misstep this freak of nature has made.
The same actions that once would have been seen as eccentric and genius are now perceived as those of an inane,
inept, incompetent, and unbalanced individual.
Someone who does not understand the cause and effect of his actions.
He seems unlikely to be able to effectively manage anyone, and by leading such an impactful social media platform,
he can even cause significant harm to humanity.
People, who once viewed Musk as a genius and his quirks as extraordinary management techniques, now begin to question
if he was ever truly successful or if his luck has finally run out. Could it be that in reality he is an ultimate dead duck?
What if the same chaos reigns all of his projects, what if their success is just a result of clever manipulation
and hoodwinking investors?
Are his companies even worth their market capitalization?
And the result is clear: a person who once owned a record-high net worth has now posted record-high financial losses
in just a couple of months.
Never before has a private individual ever shed hundreds of billions almost instantly.
And here’s another fact that is not exactly secret, as it has been widely reported, but is still not widely known.
At the premiere launch of the first iPhone, Steve Jobs wasn’t holding a fully functional device.
The operating system wasn’t good to go yet.
Steve Jobs didn't just casually approach the lectern to consult his notes — he had to press the buttons
on this demonstration model in a specific order, essentially switching between presentation screens.
The iPhone, of course, was ultimately released fully functional, sparking a revolution and transforming Apple from
a niche company into one of the most valuable and popular companies around the globe.
And because of this, the mock presentation is seen as a clever move on the part of Jobs.
However, if things had gone awry and the iPhone hadn’t been released or had it turned out to be a poor product,
it wouldn’t have been viewed as a smart move, but rather as corporate fraud.
It would’ve been regarded as an attempt to mislead investors by presenting a mock-up as a finished device.
In this case, Steve Jobs wouldn’t be remembered as a visionary businessman and innovator,
but rather as a major fraudster, alongside the likes of Bernie Madoff.
CHARISMATIC LEGITIMACY
Why am I telling you all this and what does it have to do with the matters of power?
The connection here is evidently direct, and it’s called “charismatic legitimacy.”
Many people think that charismatic legitimacy has something to do with charismatic politicians like Mussolini or Trump,
who, with their speeches and their image, turn people into stadiums of fanatics. In other words, not Vladimir Putin.
But this is not what charismatic legitimacy actually is.
A charismatic leader rules not because it is stated in some legal act, not because they are anointed to,
and not even because they are glib or good-looking.
They rule because they are successful.
They achieve the goals they set out to accomplish.
It doesn't matter what people might think of the goals themselves — what’s important is that when
such a leader says “I’ll take Kyiv,” he walks his talk, leaving NATO with nothing else to do but to voice their deep concern.
There are almost no downsides to this kind of legitimacy.
Not only does it allow you to completely ignore the lack of a legal framework for you being in power,
to manipulate the constitution as you see fit, or to conduct fraudulent elections.
It also enables you to stay above the everyday domestic problems. The president is busy, the president gave us Crimea.
As for the wages, retirement money, roads, utility services, hospitalsm and schools — all that is on the parliament,
the government, a local governor, or a mayor.
The president is too busy scoring victories and can’t be bothered to ensure that officials do their jobs.
We will now talk about the downsides to the charismatic legitimacy, but first, a non-commercial musical integration.
A NON-COMMERCIAL MUSICAL INTEGRATION
Let’s continue!
The only issue with charismatic legitimacy stems from its own strengths.
As long as a charismatic leader remains successful, neither legal foundations nor socio-economic conditions
pose a threat to their rule.
However, at some point, it may become apparent that the leader is not successful at all:
they don’t secure victories, their orders and laws are flouted, and their decisions aren’t carried out.
And soon it turns out that his throne lacks proper foundation.
For instance, here Vladimir Putin responds to a question about his plans for another term:
“Thing is, I’m constitutionally eligible to do so.”
This phrase can be interpreted in two ways, depending on his successes or failures.
As long as Vladimir Putin goes from strength to strength, he is seen as a tough guy and a winning strategist
not bound by the rules of the mortals, man whose Iskander missiles are to be reckoned with.
He is the Tsar of Russia, it is his constitution, and for him, it’s a set of guidelines, rather than laws.
His disregard for rules and norms and his caustic comments about them cannot harm him but only make him shine brighter.
It’s not a lie, it’s him winking at loyalists: the Russian Tsar and his people couldn’t care less for all those formalities.
We know the truth, but we aren’t revealing it to our enemies just yet.
And suddenly things begin to go downhill. Kyiv not captured, Kherson lost, not enough socks or underpants for soldiers.
It hardly looks like a victory — rather, it looks pathetic. From bad to worse to abysmal.
And in this situation, the same old behavior is now perceived differently:
what kind of magic tricks are these, you David Copperfield Houdini wannabe?
Constitutionally eligible, you say?
Well, according to the same Constitution, Zaporizhzhia is now a Russian city, you amateur fakir.
Actually, your resignation is 15 years overdue. And what good have you done for us in these 15 years?
Who has become richer, healthier, or happier, except you and your closest circle?
The thing with these kinds of questions is that they always come in bulk.
And that they all arise just when you lose your victorious veneer, when people realize that the president
doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing, that he has no plan, and that he’s losing his grip on power.
BELARUSIAN SCENARIO
This is a common phenomenon among dictatorial regimes following their fall.
Insightful analysts have always struggled to pinpoint a single main reason or even top ten reasons for the collapse.
It’s just that at a certain moment, among citizens, there were those who dreamt of getting rid of a dictator
and those who didn’t mind getting rid of him.
What happened in Belarus in 2020 between people and Lukashenko?
What triggered the protests was the electoral fraud, but this is true for every election in Belarus under Lukashenko.
Economic stagnation and recession?
Repression and lack of freedom? Poverty that’s starkly contrasting with the country’s European neighbors?
The never-ending lies? The oppressing Soviet aesthetics?
The lack of future prospects, with emigration being the only option? All this among many other things played its role, for sure.
People had enough of everything associated with Lukashenko and his desperate quarter-of-a-century rule.
There was nothing special about the year 2020 for the Belarussian regime. All its vices were already as old as the regime itself.
Many of those who participated in the protests had never seen any other Belarus than the one under Lukashenko.
They were raised surrounded by these vices, by factories that only helped people make their ends meet.
Every day on TV, they saw a president whose every single word was a lie.
They knew of corruption, incompetence, and eyewash.
But at some point, it ceased to be a mere fact of life and became a problem — all of it, at once.
The Belarussian model closely mirrors that of Russia.
When instead of “Do you support the war or do you want to go to prison for 15 years?”,
people are asked about their views on prospects, living conditions, urban environments, income, corruption, inequality, and poverty.
Their answers remain consistent with those from the past, a year ago, ten years ago, and throughout Putin's reign.
And don’t even bother asking about their stance on the referendum that allowed Putin
to stay in power for another 12 years.
The most important event of the decade was forgotten the day after the vote.
For as long as the winner’s charisma works, none of it matters.
But one day, the people who keep the score will bring it all up at the most inconvenient time for the regime.
RESENTMENT WITHIN THE ELITE
Don’t make a mistake of thinking that this kind of legitimacy is only true of citizens. It works with the elites, too.
Luck always favored Vladimir Putin.
He made many crazy decisions, but history and the circumstances of the time helped him get away scot-free.
2014 saw Europe’s first direct territorial annexation since 1945.
The event should have at the very least resulted in international isolation, if not a big war.
However, it turned out that Ukraine wasn’t ready to go to war over Crimea at the moment,
the Donbas conflict was reduced to a frozen one, the U.S. and Europe only went as far as implementing
symbolic sanctions, Russian elites could keep their properties in the West,
and their lifestyles in the developed world were largely unaffected.
Russia even hosted the World Cup after this.
It’s not the same narrative that’s being sold to citizens.
Surely, the political elite sees no need for geopolitical victories — all they want is to keep and ramp up their resources.
Still, the story is very similar. Putin is a winner — just not because he captured Crimea,
but because no matter the crazy things he does, he always manages to make it work for everyone.
It is a story of the fortune’s favorite. The guy may never have a plan, but he is blessed with good luck.
History, weather, the economy, the social environment — all works in his favor.
It is an important case to make.
The regime can’t be fueled by fear alone.
For almost a quarter of a century, people in Putin’s circle watched him survive every crisis.
And they are inclined to think that his luck hasn't run out yet.
That he will somehow turn the tides, and they will be compensated for their losses.
One shouldn’t think that billionaires, FSB generals, and ministers don’t walk the same earth that we do,
that their positions and wealth somehow makes them superhumans.
No, they are just as susceptible to the cognitive bias, according to which, the longtime winner will come out on top again.
The situation, they believe, will eventually change for the better if you just ride out the storm.
The faster the situation deteriorates, the less faith there will be.
And it will be replaced with the same frustration and resentment that ordinary citizens feel.
Some had their factories taken away, some missed out on their promotion, some lost money,
while some were defeated in the infighting and saw their associates wind up in jail.
None of it mattered for as long as luck was on Putin’s side, for as long as he could stabilize any situation and compensate
for any losses.
But what if he can’t anymore? What if fortune has abandoned him?
The key difference between Elon Musk and Vladimir Putin in this scenario is that while investors
and supporters may have turned away from Musk, he primarily lost a significant amount of money, and his antics,
such as strutting around the office with a kitchen sink, now elicit more ridicule than admiration.
But the moment the elites and the people realize that Putin isn’t a magician and has no idea what he’s doing,
this would be his undoing.
It wouldn’t be much of a problem if there was some other foundation for Putin’s power than just the illusions
that he himself created, like law.
But as irony would have it, to stay in power for so many years, he’s been destroying everything reminiscent of law.
Which means that only faith that he will eventually turn the tide stands between him and citizens and his own elites.
If he doesn’t, though, there will be nothing else left.
See you tomorrow.