Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century
- Downloads：8593
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-12-26 19:22:34
- Update Date：2025-09-07
- Status：finish
- Author：Sergei Guriev
- ISBN：B0BLJ7XQ5D
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
Reviews
Terry Earley
，
recommended ebook 12-13-2022
Michael Sheen
，
Good enough read if your aim is to get a better understanding of how common authoritarian rule is throughout the world。 BUT。 。 。 to me this seemed to lack substance in the arena of challenging this。 。 。 phenomena？ If one would/could call it thatGenerally speaking I think non-fiction/history readers will not find much， if anything， new here。
Aki Härmä
，
The recent book by political historians， Guriev and Treisman， draws a fascinating picture of the modern day dictators who， with personal charisma and fame， combined with the use distorted information and imitation of democratic processes rule countries。 They call these new kind of dictators Spin Dictators （SD） in contrast to Fear Dictators （FD） to whom they count people like Hitler， Stalin， Pol Pot and Idi Amin。 To identify a SD， the authors introduce a formula based on five rules country is non The recent book by political historians， Guriev and Treisman， draws a fascinating picture of the modern day dictators who， with personal charisma and fame， combined with the use distorted information and imitation of democratic processes rule countries。 They call these new kind of dictators Spin Dictators （SD） in contrast to Fear Dictators （FD） to whom they count people like Hitler， Stalin， Pol Pot and Idi Amin。 To identify a SD， the authors introduce a formula based on five rules country is nondemocracy elections are held and at least one opposition party is included a few critical media outlets are tolerated less than 10 political killings / year less than 1000 political prisoners / year A similar rules， with a slightly higher margins is used to identify FD， and the rest of the nondemocratic autocrats are considered hybrids。 The SD can also be recognized by the means of ruling being popular， often passionately appreciated by a majority of people manipulation of media and information internally and externally， encouraging self-censorship use mass popularity to consolidate power pretend to be democratic， even more democratic than democracies avoid violent repression and if it is used， try to conceal or even condemn itThe pioneer of spin dictatorship is considered to be Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and most prominent practitioners currently Turkey's Erdogan and Orban of Hungary。 Trump attempted setting up his SD in the US， but it is currently reorganizing inside the republican party for the next attempt in 2025。 Early Putin's Russia is counted as a prime example of spin dictatorship but in the recent interviews the authors remark that Putin has taken steps towards FD in the last years and most prominently after the attack to Ukraine in February 2022。 Similar progressions have also be seen in other SD autocracies， e。g。， Venezuela's regression from Chavez's SD towards the FD of the current rulers。The books reads well and has lot of interesting anecdotes and statistics and histories of many countries and their leaders。 The book is based on research in the field of political science and has more than 100 pages of footnotes and references to back the the claims。 It has an optimistic undertone， and especially the last Chapter， which suggests that with education and freedom of information autocracies will eventually convert to democracies。The authors do not share online content to update the material but the online map of freedomhouse is good side material for reading this book。 。。。more
Vito
，
Interesting book， interesting topic， but sometimes difficult to read due to its academic style。
Mary
，
Säkert intressant， men jag tappade koncentrationen rätt fort。
Ludovico Benazzo
，
In the human history the ideal of democracy has been alternatively both the driver towards prosperity and civilization， and the justification of crude atrocities and abuses。 With this book the authors try to discern between “true” democracies and “spin dictatorships”， that manipulate values recognized as positive with the aim of dissimulating authoritarian drifts。 I really appreciated this book both for the accuracy of the historical references and the brilliant reflections towards the end， culm In the human history the ideal of democracy has been alternatively both the driver towards prosperity and civilization， and the justification of crude atrocities and abuses。 With this book the authors try to discern between “true” democracies and “spin dictatorships”， that manipulate values recognized as positive with the aim of dissimulating authoritarian drifts。 I really appreciated this book both for the accuracy of the historical references and the brilliant reflections towards the end， culminating in suggesting few key principles to support the progression of humanity towards true prosperity and civilization。 。。。more
Cristina
，
interesting analysis of dictators old and new
The Atlantic
，
"At first glance， 'Spin Dictators' might not seem relevant to U。S。 elections。 The book describes new forms of dictatorship based not on fear or terror， but on manipulating media and undermining democratic institutions 。。。 U。S。 voters will find it useful to read this book and then ask themselves whether any of the candidates in their local senatorial or gubernatorial race have explicitly adopted the language and tactics originally created by modern autocrats。" — Anne Applebaumhttps://www。theatlan "At first glance， 'Spin Dictators' might not seem relevant to U。S。 elections。 The book describes new forms of dictatorship based not on fear or terror， but on manipulating media and undermining democratic institutions 。。。 U。S。 voters will find it useful to read this book and then ask themselves whether any of the candidates in their local senatorial or gubernatorial race have explicitly adopted the language and tactics originally created by modern autocrats。" — Anne Applebaumhttps://www。theatlantic。com/books/arc。。。 。。。more
Andreas Haraldstad
，
An interesting read。 Guriev and Treisman's main thesis is that today's authoritarian leaders are not like the dictators of the past。Unlike the dictators of the 20th century （like Hitler， Stalin and Mao） who ruled through fear and oppression， today's dictators （like Lee Kuan Yew， Victor Orban， Recip Erdogan， Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin） rule through subtler means。 They rule through pretending to be democracies。 Dictators of the 20th century sough full controll， they ruled through fear， abolish An interesting read。 Guriev and Treisman's main thesis is that today's authoritarian leaders are not like the dictators of the past。Unlike the dictators of the 20th century （like Hitler， Stalin and Mao） who ruled through fear and oppression， today's dictators （like Lee Kuan Yew， Victor Orban， Recip Erdogan， Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin） rule through subtler means。 They rule through pretending to be democracies。 Dictators of the 20th century sough full controll， they ruled through fear， abolished elections （our claimed to get 100% support） and sought to indoctrinate their people to a grand idea or ideology。 Modern dictators can be seen as a middle-point。 They oppress， but on a smaller scale， usually by using the courts and other means。 They rig elections， but not to much as a they want to uphold the pretense of being elected legitimately。 They censor some of the pressebut allow for opposition voices as long as their reach is low。 They rarely have any grand projects or alternate ideology， claiming instead to be "democratic" leaders。 They rarely care whether some informed people in their societies protest their rule as long as the masses support them。Guriev and Treisman ascribes this to a classical modernity thesis。 As societies become more developed （richer， more educated etc。）， people start to yearn for democracy。 Authoritarian leaders， however， can adapt to this and stay in power by pretending to be democracies。 According to the authors， Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew was the first to understand this， and the method of rule proliferated in the end of the 20th century and the start of the 21st。 Guriev and Treisman back up their findings with data and graphs， showing how there exists a unique statistical group apart from fear dictators and democracies， which they label the "spin dictators"。If I were to critique the book， it would be that their category is somewhat vague。 It is clear that it is an ideal type as the boundaries between spin-dicators， democratic leaders and more modern classical fear dictatorships （here they position China） is somewhat vague。 Though the system they operate in is different， it is not immediately clear what the difference is between for examle Orban and Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping。 Their use of the term could also be criticized as it is not clear how the label "spin dicators" differ from more established political science terms like "hybrid regimes"。 Lastly， Guriev and Treisman advocates a quite rigid modernization thesis。 I happen to agree with much of this thesis， but it is a thesis that has been heavily question and modified in recent decaes。 All in all， however， this is still an interesting idea which I think contains a lot of truth。 Their books is well written and heavily researched and Guriev and Treisman provide many interesting examples to back up their view。 I recommend this book to all who are interestd in politics， populism， authoritarianism and the challenges facing democracy in the 21st century。 。。。more
Paige Latto
，
I read this for my comparative politics class — very interesting and very informative！！
Boudewijn
，
Today's autocracies pose new challenges to the democracies of the West。 Unlike the West cold-war's adversaries， spin dictators have no real ideology。 The recognize the appeal of democracy to their citizens， they pretend to embrace it。 They use disinformation to spread cynicism and division。 If Western publics doubt democracy and distrust their leaders， those leaders will be less apt to launch democratic crusades against them。 By controlling the media， they can shape their own profile and a the s Today's autocracies pose new challenges to the democracies of the West。 Unlike the West cold-war's adversaries， spin dictators have no real ideology。 The recognize the appeal of democracy to their citizens， they pretend to embrace it。 They use disinformation to spread cynicism and division。 If Western publics doubt democracy and distrust their leaders， those leaders will be less apt to launch democratic crusades against them。 By controlling the media， they can shape their own profile and a the same time discredit the West。The book starts with Lee Kuan Yew， the ruler of Singapore who apparently served as the role model for would-be dictators。 He was the father of spin dictatorship where the ruled in a semi-authoritarian way， curtailing press freedoms， imposing narrow limits on public protests， restricting labor movements from industrial or strike action through anti-union legislation and co-option。 Not by murdering his victims in the old-fashioned way， but by bringing defamation lawsuits against prominent political opponents。 Putin took notice。The authors succeed convincingly in their effort to describe these tactics。 They do not underestimate the problems they pose for Western democracies。 However， in my view they are too optimistic and perhaps a little naive。 They state that even with today's rise in spin dictators democracy will stay upright and the shift to democracy will eventually become a unstoppable force even in Russia and China。 I have my doubts about that - perhaps this book came too early in order to process the Russian invasion in Ukraine and the rise of authoritarianism in today's Russia。 I don't think Russia will ever become a democracy but rather will slide towards a more and more authoritarian regime。 。。。more
Dale
，
changing？If this is a book about the changing face of tyranny the author should have spent more time on the change and less time on historical examples。 Almost lost me when he used Lee Kuan Yew as an example of a subtle dictator。 Ah， ok。 I guess。
Caroline
，
Interesting and persuasive argument positing that the 21st century has a new kind of autocrat - a “spin dictator。” Spin dictators don’t generally use the forceful tactics and large scale violence of their 20th century counterparts， but instead have invented more covert and behind the scene methods to nonetheless still cow their opponents and control their citizens。 The authors argue that in some ways and in some places， the worldwide march toward modernization has encouraged and even forced some Interesting and persuasive argument positing that the 21st century has a new kind of autocrat - a “spin dictator。” Spin dictators don’t generally use the forceful tactics and large scale violence of their 20th century counterparts， but instead have invented more covert and behind the scene methods to nonetheless still cow their opponents and control their citizens。 The authors argue that in some ways and in some places， the worldwide march toward modernization has encouraged and even forced some leaders to genuinely embrace democracy - while leading others （most notably/originally Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew） to inauthentically play lip service to the importance of democracy while actually devising an entirely new and nefarious system of autocratic control。 Interesting parallels with current US political currents and threats as well。 Very approachable and digestible。 A good read。 。。。more
Siying Dong
，
The idea is interring although the concept created is not solid
Leigh Kimmel
，
Way back in the late 80's， when I was doing an MS in library science， I made some remark about how an Information Age dictator wouldn't censor and limit the people's access to information， but would instead use their ability to access information as a means of control。 At the time I couldn't articulate how， but as the years have gone by， I've come to an increasing understanding of the sort of mechanisms by which seemingly free access to information can be used to control people -- although in th Way back in the late 80's， when I was doing an MS in library science， I made some remark about how an Information Age dictator wouldn't censor and limit the people's access to information， but would instead use their ability to access information as a means of control。 At the time I couldn't articulate how， but as the years have gone by， I've come to an increasing understanding of the sort of mechanisms by which seemingly free access to information can be used to control people -- although in the US it's largely been outsourced to private companies such as Facebook and Twitter to get around that pesky First Amendment。 Talk to anyone with political views that go against the mainstream and you'll hear stories of repeated Twitter and Facebook bans， simply because someone complained of being "offended" by a post or tweet。Outside the free world， we're also seeing that even countries that don't have formal protections of freedom of speech， assembly， and conscience are having to change with the times。 Instead of the brutality and mass murder that characterized the infamous regimes that made the middle part of the 20th century run red with blood （what the authors term fear dictators）， the tyrants of the 21st century prefer a lighter touch， creating the illusion of democracy and freedom while marginalizing and demoralizing their opponents rather than imprisoning and executing them （the spin dictators of the title）。 If arrests are made， they are almost always for non-political offenses， often matters that make the person look either ridiculous or repellent。The Soviet Union held elections for the Supreme Soviet， even during the height of Stalin's repressions。 However， they were mere window dressing， with a single slate of candidates that the voters dutifully marked off by the numbers as they were marched through the polls by the local Communist Party committee -- and the Supreme Soviet assembled only briefly to rubber stamp matters already decided by the Central Committee of the Communist Party。 By contrast， the new model dictatorship holds elections that actually look competitive， with opposition party candidates on the ballot and those candidates able to actually campaign -- but they're kept marginalized and impotent by tricks such as gerrymandering or media manipulation to keep them looking weak and ineffective。Part of the shift is the post-Cold-War West's decreasing willingness to make devil's bargains with anti-Communist dictatorships and overlook their abuses。 Tyrants have to soft-pedal their rule to keep the international trade and aid coming。 But there's also an internal driver to the changes， as developing countries' own societies move into the Information Age， with attendant cultural changes。 It's much harder to control knowledge workers， who need access to information， than barely literate factory workers。 Furthermore， the Internet and easily available digital devices have resulted in a shift in the information center of gravity away from centrally-controlled mass media to peer-to-peer communications。 With the ease of creating websites and blog pages， opposition groups and whistleblowers can get the signal out in a way that's much harder to silence than the old days of newspapers and radio/TV stations， which were easy to identify and shut down。The final quarter of the book is an extensive scholarly apparatus， including detailed notes， an extensive bibliography， and an index。 If this book has any real flaw， it occasionally becomes repetitive -- but this could just be an effect of the tendency of formal writing to "tell them what you'll be telling them， tell them it， then tell them what you've told them。" While this can help cement the ideas in the minds of the readers， it can also result in plodding， leaden prose and an urge to skim introductions and conclusions。 。。。more
Fiona
，
Alternates between being sort of interesting and tediously， recursively academic。
Ali Hassan
，
This book presents the nature of dictators of the 21st century as they differ from the dictators of the twentieth century。 Sergei Guriev， the author of the book， provides case studies from various countries from Russia to Venezuela to Singapore and elaborates how the strongmen from these countries ruled over their respective countries for decades with their deceptive measures。
David
，
This book could be titled， "Handbook on How to be a Spin Dictator" as it outlines the playbook and strategies of the best of them。The author distinguishes Fear Dictators （those who rule through fear and violent repression） from Spin Dictators （those who rule through deception）。Generally， when we think of dictators， we think of Hitler， Stalin， Mao etc。 However， in the modern rise of the Spinners （my term）， Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore stands out as one many would eventually emulate。We should fear th This book could be titled， "Handbook on How to be a Spin Dictator" as it outlines the playbook and strategies of the best of them。The author distinguishes Fear Dictators （those who rule through fear and violent repression） from Spin Dictators （those who rule through deception）。Generally， when we think of dictators， we think of Hitler， Stalin， Mao etc。 However， in the modern rise of the Spinners （my term）， Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore stands out as one many would eventually emulate。We should fear these Spinners more than the old-school dictators because their abuses are covert and often， more effective。What can be done about this？ The final chapter offers some suggestions but don't be too optimistic。 There is no panacea。 。。。more
Edwin B
，
The authors， Guriev and Treisman， offer assurance that the cause of the increased number of spin dictators across the world today is the very same cause that will drive their diminution。The increase in the use of spin， over the use of fear， by today’s dictators reveals that dictatorship as a way of governing is on the defensive， the authors argue。They proffer that liberal democracy’s aggressive ideological dominance within global institutions has actually grown since the end of the World Wars。 A The authors， Guriev and Treisman， offer assurance that the cause of the increased number of spin dictators across the world today is the very same cause that will drive their diminution。The increase in the use of spin， over the use of fear， by today’s dictators reveals that dictatorship as a way of governing is on the defensive， the authors argue。They proffer that liberal democracy’s aggressive ideological dominance within global institutions has actually grown since the end of the World Wars。 And as a result， today’s dictators have been less able to be as blatantly undemocratic， repressive， and violent as before。 They now have to turn towards manipulation of spin， and away from inculcation of fear， if they are to avoid being thoroughly discredited and isolated domestically and internationally。The post-industrial modernization， the growth in prevalence of higher-educational attainment， the emergence of a "creative class" （with its demands for self-expression and participation） stemming from the overtaking of the manufacturing by the service sectors of the economy， and the globalization of the world order with attendant pressures for inter-national accountability， have all resulted in dictators now needing to maintain some semblance of democratic processes， multi-party elections， checks and balances， and press freedom; needing to disguise repression and persecution of political opponents by using means other than blatant and ubiquitous political executions， arrests， tortures， and imprisonments; and needing to make use， instead， of legal harassment and trumped-up charges against the opposition， fake news and trolls on social media， and weaponization of legitimate processes and institutions of government。Spin dictators will not be defeated without a fight。 But their very emergence indicates that outright dictatorial rule is on the retreat。 And the global arc towards modernity is on democracy's side， the authors say。Are you as optimistic as they are？ 。。。more
Izzy
，
Spin DictatorsThis book differentiates the retrogressive spin based government of Putin from the even worse， fear based authoritarian autocracy that preceded with Stalin and company。 The authors present their descritpitve explanations well with plenty of examples of the pretense of democracy of Singapores Lee， and especially of Hugo Chavez， Orban， Erdogan， and Putin in spin based pseudo-democracies。They come up with the factors in the favor of possible long term success of democracy vs spin base Spin DictatorsThis book differentiates the retrogressive spin based government of Putin from the even worse， fear based authoritarian autocracy that preceded with Stalin and company。 The authors present their descritpitve explanations well with plenty of examples of the pretense of democracy of Singapores Lee， and especially of Hugo Chavez， Orban， Erdogan， and Putin in spin based pseudo-democracies。They come up with the factors in the favor of possible long term success of democracy vs spin based authoritarianism， but see it as not a done deal。 Post industrial economies， increasing percentage of college participation by the general population， and the values shown in surveys that favor human rights as factors favoring liberal democracy over persisting growth authoritarianism; he does dwell on the military adventurism of Putin， making the book quite timely since the most recent invasion of Ukraine。The ‘data’ presented is not quite as strong as the ideas that are presented。 But the idea was that despite one step backwards lately， we still are two steps ahead in a march towards more liberal democarcy since the end of the Soviet Union in 1990。 。。。more
Μίλτος Τρ。
，
Από τη Σιγκαπούρη και την Τουρκία μέχρι την Ουγγαρία και τη Ρωσία， πώς οι δικτάτορες μεταμφιέζονται σε δημοκράτες και επιβιώνουν σήμερα。 Ένα ταξίδι σε case studies σε όλες τις ηπείρους με μηνύματα και για την Ελλάδα。
Scott Martin
，
This work is a pol-sci type textbook that is actually quite readable。 It looks at the evolution of the authoritarian rulers of the 21st century and how they are different from their 20th century counterparts。 While there are still some old-school holdouts （North Korea）， the modern type rulers， while holding supreme power， are using a different playbook。 They are using perception and information as their tools for maintaining power。 They use the tools of the West against the West and their opposi This work is a pol-sci type textbook that is actually quite readable。 It looks at the evolution of the authoritarian rulers of the 21st century and how they are different from their 20th century counterparts。 While there are still some old-school holdouts （North Korea）， the modern type rulers， while holding supreme power， are using a different playbook。 They are using perception and information as their tools for maintaining power。 They use the tools of the West against the West and their opposition。 It is clever and effective。 The authors do try to offer some ways the West can counter， but unfortunately， several leaders in the West are doing the same thing。 There might be hope to counter， but this is a bit of a scary work， one that does not seem like it will be regulated to history。 。。。more
Jean
，
Since the 24th of February 2022 the author's playbook spin dictator turned into a classic one。 So the core idea and the hypothesis about existence of such new bran "spin dictator" is false。 All of them are as they were hundreds and thousands year ago - the classic ones。Waste of an intellectual effort time。 Since the 24th of February 2022 the author's playbook spin dictator turned into a classic one。 So the core idea and the hypothesis about existence of such new bran "spin dictator" is false。 All of them are as they were hundreds and thousands year ago - the classic ones。Waste of an intellectual effort time。 。。。more
Илья Дескулин
，
The analysis of the new type of authoritarianism is brilliant。 However， the progressive mantra （which is being repeated by so many scholars） is pretty tedious。
Slava Bernat
，
A good compilation and classification of modern autocratic regimes。 Contrast with XX-century-style butchers is evident and transition to more overt tactics is apparent。 Main point I've got from the book: ideological emptiness of modern autocrats， with a notable exception of islamist regimes。 Which is very consistent with Fukuyama's 'end of history' argument。 Coming from Belarus I've noticed that myself。 For 28 years now， Lukashenko pushes the cargo-cult of Soviet era without actual communist con A good compilation and classification of modern autocratic regimes。 Contrast with XX-century-style butchers is evident and transition to more overt tactics is apparent。 Main point I've got from the book: ideological emptiness of modern autocrats， with a notable exception of islamist regimes。 Which is very consistent with Fukuyama's 'end of history' argument。 Coming from Belarus I've noticed that myself。 For 28 years now， Lukashenko pushes the cargo-cult of Soviet era without actual communist content; without any positive ideology for that matter - only hate of 'western values' under vague umbrella of anti-liberalism。 In a way I was surprised to see him classified as 'fear dictator' though。 Until 2020 he'd probably fit well into 'spin' category。Which leads to my main criticism of the book - there's no convincing discussion of factors leading the evolution of spin dictatorship into democracy or sliding back in to old school fear regimes。 For sure， it's extremely hard to find those factors as we live through this processes in real time but still。Other weak-ish point is what Western countries ought to do with spin dictators。 The discussion seems to boil down to 'just be better yourself'。 Which is fine in historical perspective and as preventive measure but doesn't answer the question that really matters: what democratic countries ought to do with situation right now when it's already out of control， what's the self-correction mechanism？ Sure， in the long run dictators may be forced to 'fake it till you make it' democracy。 But "in the long run we are all dead"。 。。。more
Ron
，
Although this book （admirably tries but） fails to straddle the academic and popular audience divide， this is one of those books where you find yourself nodding your head regularly as somebody has put what you already knew into succinct words。
Roman Chernushov
，
Систематизация общеизвестных фактов и событий。
Horace Derwent
，
PREFACEEarly in the twenty-first century， global politics hit amajor milestone。 For the first time， the number ofdemocracies in the world surged past the tally ofauthoritarian states。 As this seismic “third wave” crested，experts identified 98 countries with free government，compared to 80 still controlled by dictators。1 Theoptimism was infectious。 New information technologies，globalization， and economic development seemed to becalling “time’s up” on strongman rule。 As countriesmodernized， tyranny PREFACEEarly in the twenty-first century， global politics hit amajor milestone。 For the first time， the number ofdemocracies in the world surged past the tally ofauthoritarian states。 As this seismic “third wave” crested，experts identified 98 countries with free government，compared to 80 still controlled by dictators。1 Theoptimism was infectious。 New information technologies，globalization， and economic development seemed to becalling “time’s up” on strongman rule。 As countriesmodernized， tyranny was becoming obsolete。The celebrations did not last long。 In fact， they hardlygot started。 Within a few years， the advance of freedomhad petered out， yielding what some quickly termed a“democratic recession。” A dramatic financial crisis， born inthe United States， sent the global economy crashing，undercutting faith in Western governance。 By 2019， thenumber of democracies had fallen to 87 while that ofdictatorships was back up to 92。 In the West， liberalismwas proving little match for populism， while in the East，all eyes were turned to China’s meteoric rise。 Themillennial exuberance gave way to a sense of gloom。Today’s political pessimism is a bit overdone。 By mostmeasures， global democracy remains not far below itsall-time high。 But the dark mood points to a genuinepuzzle。 Even if dictatorships are not taking over， thequestion is how they can survive at all—and evenprosper—in an ultramodern world。 Why， after all thebrutal manias of the twentieth century—from fascism tocommunism—have been discredited， do we still see newautocracies rising from the ashes？ And what to make ofthe strongmen who are embracing tools of modernity，using Western technologies to challenge Western ways oflife？With its unmatched population and explosive growth，China has been pegged as the counterargument toliberal democracy。 Its economic success—hardly dentedby the 2008–9 slump or even the 2020 Covidcrisis—seems to contradict the equation of developmentwith popular rule。 And yet， outside the metropolises ofBeijing and Shanghai and the glittering entrepôts ofHong Kong and Macau， most of the country remainsquite poor， its population still manageable byindustrial-era and even preindustrial methods。 The biggerpuzzle is the survival of unfree government in affluentsocieties such as Singapore and Russia， where universitydegrees are more common than in most Westerndemocracies。 Do such cases offer a glimpse into anauthoritarian future？This book is an attempt to explain the nature ofcurrent dictatorships。 It grew out of a mixture ofresearch and personal experience。 We both spent yearstracking the rise of Putin’s system in Russia， throughacademic analysis and firsthand observation。 His regimecame to seem to us not unique but rather an exemplarof trends that were reshaping authoritarian statesworldwide—from Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela and Viktor Orbán’s Hungary to Mahathir Mohamad’s Malaysia andNursultan Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan。 Observers strugglewith what to call these leaders。 Some fall for theirpantomime of democracy; others offer awkwardanalogies to historical strongmen， labeling Putin a “tsar”or Erdoğ an a “sultan。” We see all these rulers asconverging on a novel—though notunprecedented—approach that can preserve autocracyfor a while in even modern， globalized settings。 The keyto this is deception: most dictators today conceal theirtrue nature。 So the first step is to understand how theyoperate。 In the chapters that follow， we explore whythese regimes emerged， how they work， what threatsthey pose， and how the West can best resist them。The book is based on theoretical and empiricalresearch that we have published in economics andpolitical science journals。 Our hope here is to make thekey ideas more accessible。 Wherever possible， we backup our claims with references to published studies（including our own） and data。 A variety of tables andgraphs appear in an online supplement， accessible viahttps://press。princeton。edu/books/spi。。。。 Werefer to this material in the respective chapters’ closingsections titled “Checking the Evidence。”Over the years， many colleagues and friends haveshared thoughts on the ideas we present here。 We aregrateful to Alberto Alesina， Maxim Ananyev， MarinaAzzimonti， Timothy Besley， Bruce Bueno de Mesquita，Brett Carter， Chao-yo Cheng， George Derpanopoulos，Tiberiu Dragu， Georgy Egorov， Cherian George， LisaGeorge， Francesco Giavazzi， Gilat Levy， Andrew Little，Elias Papaioannou， Torsten Persson， Richard Portes，Andrea Prat， Eugenio Proto， Gerard Roland， ArturasRozenas， Miklos Sarvary， Paul Seabright， DanielSeidmann， David Skarbek， Konstantin Sonin， FrancescoSquintani， Eoghan Stafford， David Stromberg， GuidoTabellini， Gergely Ujhelyi， Qian Wang， Feng Yang， andFabrizio Zilibotti。 Cevat Aksoy， Anders Aslund， JonathanAves， Danny Bahar， Carles Boix， Maxim Boycko， JavierCorrales， Tim Frye， Barbara Geddes， Scott Gehlbach，Susan Landesmann， Lee Morgenbesser， PeterPomerantsev， Molly Roberts， Dani Rodrik， Michael Ross，Andrei Shleifer， Andrei Soldatov， Art Stein， Milan Svolik，Adam Szeidl， Ferenc Szucs， Michel Treisman， JoshTucker， David Yang， and Ekaterina Zhuravskaya read allor parts of the manuscript and offered invaluablecomments， as did two anonymous readers。 We thankAndrei Shleifer in particular for encouraging us todevelop our arguments into a book。 Of course， we aresolely responsible for any remaining mistakes。 KevinGatter， Nikita Melnikov， and Ekaterina Nemova providedexcellent research assistance。 At Princeton UniversityPress， we benefited from the expert guidance andencouragement of Bridget Flannery-McCoy， Sarah Caro（now at Basic Books）， Eric Crahan， and Alena Chekanov。FEAR AND SPINDictators have been changing。 The classic tyrants of thetwentieth century—Adolf Hitler， Josef Stalin， MaoZedong—were larger-than-life figures responsible for thedeaths of millions。 They set out to build new civilizationswithin their tightly guarded—and sometimesexpanding—borders。 That meant controlling not justpeople’s public behavior but also their private lives。 Todo that， each created a disciplined party and a brutalsecret police。 Not every old-school dictator was agenocidal killer or the prophet of some utopian creed。But even the less bloodthirsty ones were expert atprojecting fear。 Terror was their all-purpose tool。However， toward the end of the century somethingchanged。 Strongmen around the world started turningup to meetings in conservative suits instead of militaryuniforms。 Most stopped executing their opponents infront of packed football stadiums。 Many flew to theannual business conference in the Swiss resort of Davosto schmooze with the global elite。 These new dictatorshired pollsters and political consultants， staged citizencall-in shows， and sent their children to study atuniversities in the West。 They did not loosen their gripover the population—far from it， they worked to designmore effective instruments of control。 But they did sowhile acting the part of democrats。Not all autocrats have made this leap。 North Korea’sKim Jong-Un and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad would fit wellinto a scrapbook of twentieth-century despots。 In Chinaand Saudi Arabia， rulers have digitized the oldfear-based model instead of replacing it。 But the globalbalance has shifted。 Among leaders of nondemocraciestoday， the representative figure is no longer a totalitariantyrant like Josef Stalin， a sadistic butcher like Idi Amin，or even a reactionary general like Augusto Pinochet。 Heis a suave manipulator like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán orSingapore’s Lee Hsien Loong—a ruler who pretends tobe a humble servant of the people。This new model is based on a brilliant insight。 Thecentral goal remains the same: to monopolize politicalpower。 But today’s strongmen realize that in currentconditions violence is not always necessary or evenhelpful。 Instead of terrorizing citizens， a skillful ruler cancontrol them by reshaping their beliefs about the world。He can fool people into compliance and even enthusiasticapproval。 In place of harsh repression， the new dictatorsmanipulate information。 Like spin doctors in a democracy，they spin the news to engineer support。 They are spin dictators。 。。。more
Marks54
，
This is a book about the current crop of dictators arguing that they have less in common with the Hitlers， Stalins， and Maos of the 20th century。 In contrast， while current dictators can and do use violence and mass incarceration when needed， they prefer; not to use these tools and instead control the information and stories that are presented to the masses so as to avoid the need for violence and torture。 This is apparently a more efficient way to be a dictator and maintain a semblance of popul This is a book about the current crop of dictators arguing that they have less in common with the Hitlers， Stalins， and Maos of the 20th century。 In contrast， while current dictators can and do use violence and mass incarceration when needed， they prefer; not to use these tools and instead control the information and stories that are presented to the masses so as to avoid the need for violence and torture。 This is apparently a more efficient way to be a dictator and maintain a semblance of popular approval for the regime。There may well be something noteworthy， but it is not clear to me that it is such a sharp distinction。 I suspect that the war in Ukraine， along with the persistence of COVID-19 and its lockdowns， will put some of these ideas to the test。I have to process this a bit and will revisit the review。 。。。more
Konstantin
，