Russians often get scolded for being sheepishly obedient to sordid authorities.
We’ve covered it at length and discussed fear, coercion, and repression
as the factors preventing Russians from staging a street protest.
But let’s switch to something so obvious and corny, it’s turned into a blind spot.
Let’s discuss why Vladimir Putin has become Russia’s longstanding and unchallenged leader
and why millions of Russians have put their faith in him.
Was there something special about him or about us, for that matter,
that allowed him to tighten up his grip on power in a firm chokehold and maintain control over it till this day?
Is there a piggybank of people’s trust and, if so, what is it? Will Putin ever crack it open and max out on this trust?
CHARISMATIC LEGITIMACY
First, let’s figure out why people are obedient to authorities.
Why would a group of schoolkids submit to their informal leader?
Why would thousands of users listen to online influencers?
How do they agree on who it is that they should consider their leader?
Why do they follow orders even if their leader doesn’t coerce them into it?
An honest answer would be: we don’t know. This is a big gap in political science and social psychology.
This consent to voluntarily submit to authorities is called legitimacy.
However, this piece of scientific jargon still lacks a good explanation.
There are three types of legitimacy: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal.
In practice, we normally face a combination of the three, with one type being prevalent.
Just real quick: traditional legitimacy, by definition, relies on tradition.
Like, our grandparents did it this way, no need to do things differently.
Rational-legal legitimacy rests upon laws and procedures.
The law mandates a direct and fair election by secret ballot that will be called, whereupon
the winner will be attested by an official document. Everyone will hold this document in high regard.
And then, there’s charismatic legitimacy. This one is often utilized by autocrats.
It’s this type of legitimacy that underpins Vladimir Putin’s regime.
Yet, it’s the muzziest of the three since it relies upon sheer emotion as people put their faith
in a single leader, his power, will, and well-meaning actions.
There’s also hope that he knows what needs to be done and is capable of doing what nobody else can.
But what’s the nature of this emotion?
Why would the attention and faith of entire nations home in on a single individual?
Why is this person entrusted with leadership duties?
Some clues about the mechanics of charismatic legitimacy aren’t yielded
by political science or social studies but by Carl Jung’s collective unconscious theory.
An important disclaimer: his theory lacks scientific evidence.
But it explains certain aspects of people’s social behaviors so well,
it’s amply used in humanitarian scholarship as a metaphor or a handy tool
to denote some common psychological mechanisms.
According to Carl Jung, the collective unconscious is the part of our minds that, one,
can’t be intellectualized or controlled and, two, isn’t formed by our personal experience.
We share it with others.
This can be construed as a thick layer of our personality with pre-installed settings,
including our beliefs about the authorities and submission.
That’s why they are similar in different people.
Jung goes on to argue that the collective unconscious is made up of shared archetypes.
Those affect everything we do as part of a single whole. One good example would be folklore.
You must have come across myths and legends that are eerily similar across different cultures
that are separated by thousands of miles and that didn’t have human contact over millennia.
Perhaps these similarities point to these basic presets in our minds.
The collective unconscious filled with universally comprehensible archetypes.
Many of our actions — our interaction with authorities, most notably — can be impacted by these archetypes.
The idea of archetypes proved practically useful in domains in which images
and storylines have played a pivotal role. After all, our archetypes are indeed images and storylines.
You can tap into these archetypes to come up with a script that’ll appeal to a major chunk
of your audience or shoot a commercial.
Whether we realize it or not, Coca-Cola taps into the Innocent archetype,
and IKEA exploits the Everyman one, while Nike strives to embody the Hero archetype.
But there’s one more domain where archetypes are a common tool.
That’s politics and, more specifically, political strategizing.
Devising their election campaigns, professionals from this realm are targeting the ideas people already have.
The images of an economy-minded leader, a successful businessperson,
or a strongman are employed overtly just because they rely upon our common archetypes.
And that’s what adds to their appeal, clarity, and efficiency.
Or they may have been this way until they became an eyesore.
A botched, corny, or outdated twist to an archetype can be turn-off.
But this isn’t to say politicians will ever shun archetypes.
It only means that spin doctors will get more creative in twisting them.
A “TRUE CZAR” ARCHETYPE
Now, let’s try and tie it back to Vladimir Putin and his charismatic legitimacy.
But before we do, please watch the announcement!
NON-COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
Let's keep rolling!
Putin’s authority taps into the widespread Russian unconscious archetype
of a “true czar” or a “true leader.”
The extent of these qualities being true don’t correlate with the legality of his rule but rather
with his winningness. If the latter criterion is met, the collective unconscious won’t challenge
his credentials and the legality of his rule. If he’s not winning, he isn’t a true czar — he’s a dud.
In Russia, the image of the “supreme boss” or a “true czar” has traditionally followed the canon.
A true czar protects Russia. He often emerges amid turmoil and decay to snap the country’s losing streak.
He engages in land grabs and sides with people when it comes to confronting “powerful individuals.”
One has to admit that before the war started, Putin largely met these criteria.
He’d forged an image of a politician directly addressing the people over the heads of the elites.
This was fostered by, for instance, live televised Q&A’s where every citizen (who had been carefully vetted)
could directly complain about the actions of their governor
It was followed by the public scolding of said governor.
It’s hard to reconcile with his palace, his offshore entities exposed by the Panama Papers,
and his Scheherazade superyacht.
And yet, many Russians view Putin as an anti-oligarchic champion who only owns a relatively
modest condo and a Soviet-made car.
In Russia, there’s a medieval saying, “The czar is good; the boyars [high-ranking statesmen] aren’t.”
This is exactly the anti-elitist message that, if hammered home correctly, aids the “true czar” image.
That's where the purported war on oligarchs and the rest of the narrative
that's been in heavy use ever since his rise to power come in handy.
Putin earned a reputation as a protector of Russia early in his career when he served as PM.
Quizzed about the then-recent aerial bombardment of Grozny during the Chechen Campaign,
he vowed to “scrape the terrorists out of the sewer.”
Let’s put it into perspective.
A week prior to that interview, four apartment blocks in Russia were blown up.
The violent terrorist attacks in Buinaksk, Moscow, and Volgodonsk sent a chill through the nation.
The drawn-out, bloody Second Chechen Campaign that showed no shred of mercy both to Russian soldiers
and Chechnya residents was Vladimir Putin’s first win.
People that weren’t accustomed to either victories or politicians protecting them found it easier to overlook
the blood-curdling death toll of the war and instead focus on the primitive logic.
Chechnya was the cradle of terrorist, while Putin was fighting it and coming out on top.
Since early into his tenure, the propaganda was busy reinterpreting the events of 1989–1991.
For over a decade, the collapse of the Soviet Union had been regarded mostly
as a revolution and a toppling of dictatorial rule.
On Putin’s watch, the spin on those events changed
It was hailed as “the biggest political disaster of the 20th century” and “a defeat dealt to us by the West.”
The defeat, needless to say, was a sordid one and involved ignominious backstabbing
in just a series of inglorious shenanigans from the West.
On this worldview, the Roaring 1990s were the very turmoil that was snapped into oblivion
by the emergence of Vladimir Putin on the political landscape.
The incessant talk of Russia being “treated respectfully on the international scene”
thanks to Putin’s actions and the fixation on alleged foreign policy achievements
trumping the mediocre domestic track record alleviated the phantom limb pain sensations of the defeat
that was entirely manufactured by the propaganda machine.
In that paradigm, Putin came across as a “true czar” bringing the Russian people back into relevance.
But such vague concepts as “global recognition” weren’t nearly enough to counteract the
“geopolitical disaster” of the early 1990s. Putin was looking for a decisive win.
The real and palpable argument.
That’s when the annexation of Crimea occurred. It fit the archetype to a T.
It healed the illusory sore of the humiliating defeat. It seemed Putin was now the real czar.
At least, as archetypically perceived by the people.
That win was milked big time. The president’s ratings that had been dwindling shot through the roof.
The Russian finally felt like their country was a “great power,” and they shared this solidarity.
This phenomenon was termed “the Crimean consensus.” The effects lasted four years.
It wasn’t affected by the dramatic economic changes, the ensuing sanctions, or the plunge in the standard of living.
Importantly, the unconscious doesn’t rate anything in terms of morality.
The unconscious can’t care less about the legality of the annexation,
the death toll, the casualties, the practicality, or the economic viability of that win.
The unconscious and its archetypes are an ancient and archaic mechanism.
It may well resonate with current events, but its judgments date back to the 16th century or, worse,
even the Old Stone Age. He who has won is the leader.
Hence the largely inconsequential justifications of the murky episodes of our history starting with the word “but.”
True, Stalin repressed millions, but he won WW2.
True, Peter I left thousands of serfs to die in treacherous marshlands, but he set up St. Petersburg.
True, Putin has illegally seized a chunk of the neighboring state, but Crimea is finally ours.
It may seem the utterer clearly realizes what happened as evidence by the opening coordinate clause.
But the second part of the sentence, the emotionally charged one eclipses it.
It’s this kind of emotion that underpins charismatic legitimacy.
One advantage it confers is that the leader’s reputation can hardly be tarnished.
Political assassinations, shows of aggression, and corruption allegations do little to turn off the public.
This inhumane line of behavior doesn’t put a dent in the archetypical image of a “true czar.”
After all, the czar must lead a lavish lifestyle, he’s fittingly cruel, and he engages in wars of aggression.
That’s where the “but Russia has finally struck back” argument kicks in. And it can hardly be rebutted.
THE CZAR IS A DUD
Things have changed over the past 18 months.
By unleashing an inglorious war and dragging Russia into it, Putin had no other obligations
to the Russians’ collective unconscious but to win. He was expected to shellac the enemy.
Taking Bakhmut and pretending that’s what it was all about wouldn’t wow the audience.
The duration of this war or the death toll are immaterial in this context.
He was expected to win in a rout. That was a must.
Otherwise, he would've failed to measure up to the archetype.
The fabric of the ruler’s posh dress would start to come apart.
And there’s nothing worse than sitting at the helm at a time when the majority begin to realize,
“The czar is a dud!”
Yeah, you can say the previous experience shows that Putin needs more time, and he’ll sur find a way-out.
But this time, 18 months in, it’s dawning on people something has gone terribly wrong.
Not everyone has realized that, but the social dynamic is there.
People begin to realize winning isn’t on the cards. The miss is as good as a mile. Putin has already lost.
The war is unwinnable because it has no clear-cut goals.
This is enough for the long-used “true czar” archetype to start fading away just like your summertime tan.
Vladimir Putin finds himself in a spot where every swing he makes ends in a miss,
and every miss brings him closer to that fastball that’ll eventually strike him out as an impostor.
Previously, this archetype shielded Putin from exposure and distrust.
Now, once someone spots the president’s mismatch with the archetype, it leads to growing disbelief.
As people begin to doubt his winning credentials, they start to question even
what appeared to be his immutable characteristics.
Didn’t everyone have an opportunity to find out about Putin’s associations with oligarchs
and corruption a year ago, two years ago, or five years ago? Sure they did.
Moreover, it was even more feasible back then.
But it’s now that he’s losing, the stories of his royal amenities in the seaside palace
somehow become more credible. Therefore, the anti-elitist and austere image of Putin is ebbing.
The narrative of the great turmoil of the ‘90s Putin had rescued Russia from is now being offset
by the narrative of a new spell of turmoil he’s driving Russia into.
You can’t unsee a losing Putin. Further on, you can see him as a corrupt politician closely affiliated
with the oligarchs, wasting people’s lives and steering the country toward a train wreck.
Putin is yet again trying to punch above his weight.
Previously, his presence in the company of other world leaders did the trick.
Just look at me, they treat me like a peer or even something better than that.
But now it's different. Showing up side by side with Vladimir Putin can smear a politician’s reputations.
The only thing left is agreeing to meet those who are less sensitive. Check out this move
Here’s the footage of Putin’s meeting with Burkina Faso’s interim president.
During the event, Putin announced the recommencement of the Russian embassy’s operations in the republic.
The last time the Russian embassy worked there was in 1992.
By the looks of it, things in that country have hardly improved dramatically
to a point where you can safely reopen your embassy. But it’s no longer a la carte.
Another unbelievable meeting was with Cameroon’s president and the first lady.
The guy has been in office for over 40 years.
That’s Vladimir Putin’s current league after he was demoted and barred from meeting
the British royalty or the leading Western politicians. This reverse evolution looks pathetic.
This flavor of Putin doesn’t ooze czarist royalty.
MOVIES ARE DIFFERENT
We started off today’s conversation by saying that archetypes work in politics as well as in movies.
If our storyline had been fictional, it would’ve made a long-running show.
A long multi-episode production, with 23 seasons to binge-watch.
But it wouldn’t have been renewed to Season 24.
Once the protagonist mismatches the archetype, they shed their magical vibe that’s crucial to public appeal.
His power over the audience is dissipating.
The screenwriters would’ve been fired, and the actor would’ve retired right away.
It doesn’t work this way in real life, though.
The ruler’s authority doesn’t solely rely on charismatic legitimacy and archetypal hits.
Putin also enjoys traditional and rational-legal legitimacies.
The system is in the habit of obeying him. And even despite the fact that Russian elections have long
become a bad joke, Putin can still flash his employment record with the word “president” typed all over it.
But within the system, something has cracked. The protagonist is no longer a universal heartthrob.
He’s no longer that compelling in his czarist shoes.
He keeps rattling off high-falutin statements every once in a while, except to more reticent rounds of applause.
The charismatic legitimacy that has ensured Putin’s lengthy stay at the helm is now slipping away
from him at the worst time possible. The election is upcoming. He needs to show that his public appeal
and endorsements from the system are still there.
That’s the biggest flaw not just to charismatic but any type of legitimacy. It needs to be maintained.
See you tomorrow!