Why We Keep Falling for the Same Political Promises
A Look at the Cycle
Societies have repeatedly witnessed the rise, defeat, and re-emergence of authoritarian and fascist movements. This recurrence raises a troubling question: why do some people return to supporting political movements that resemble earlier movements which produced repression, violence, or democratic decline? The answer is complex and cannot be reduced to a single cause. Historians, political theorists, psychologists, and sociologists generally point to a convergence of structural crises, cultural narratives, psychological tendencies, institutional weaknesses, and elite manipulation. The cycle persists not because human beings are destined to repeat it, but because the conditions that enable it continue to reappear.
One of the most influential explanations comes from historian Roger Griffin’s concept of “palingenetic ultranationalism.” The word palingenesis derives from the Greek words palin (”again”) and genesis (”birth”), meaning rebirth or regeneration. Griffin argues that the defining myth of fascism is the promise of national rebirth after a period of perceived decline. Fascist movements typically emerge by convincing citizens that their nation has fallen into decadence - a state of moral, cultural, political, or social deterioration - and that only radical national renewal can restore so-called greatness.
Economic recessions, political corruption, demographic change, technological disruption, military defeat, or social fragmentation often create widespread anxiety. When democratic institutions appear incapable of addressing these problems, authoritarian movements present themselves as decisive alternatives, promise dramatic transformation and immediate solutions. The irony is the people in charge are the ones causing these problems and benefitting from them.
See my post on “disaster capitalism” (Naomi Klein): https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNRvvJ9jM/
Cultural anxieties frequently amplify this process. Concerns about immigration, supposed changing social norms, globalisation, economic insecurity, or perceived loss of national identity can be transformed into narratives of collective decline. These narratives often divide society into “true” members of the nation and alleged internal and external enemies who are blamed for national problems. Such scapegoating allows complex structural issues to be explained through simple emotional stories.
However, not all citizens respond to these narratives in the same way. Some individuals recognise historical patterns and identify similarities between contemporary movements and previous authoritarian regimes. Unbiased and verified historical education, civic literacy, exposure to diverse perspectives, and strong critical thinking skills often help individuals detect recurring tactics; bigotry acceleration, scapegoating, austerity, concentration of power, and promises of national salvation. Blame and punishment is put on the public when it’s the shape-shifting elites having fun gambling our money, and causing excessive destruction (in all senses of the word, not for moral/ideological reasons but because of hedonism), in areas of the world we’re too busy or apathetic to deem important.
Others struggle to recognise these patterns. Psychological research suggests that people often rely on cognitive shortcuts, group identities, and emotional reasoning when interpreting political events. Individuals with rigid ideological commitments may reject information that threatens their worldview no matter how true it is. Propaganda can further obscure historical parallels by presenting old ideas as entirely new solutions. When citizens lack access to accurate information or are exposed only to highly partisan narratives, recognising recurring political patterns becomes more difficult. The concept of “double think” from Orwell’s 1984 plays a part here too. The masses are flooded with so much information consisting of linguistically constructed half-truths that they simultaneously believe in contradicting rationalities, and become so overwhelmed that they give up seeking what’s real, or at least the closest thing to reality. Our busy schedules make research sessions hard to pencil in.
Recognition alone, however, does not guarantee resistance. Many people who understand historical dangers may still support or tolerate authoritarian movements. Fear of economic collapse, social disorder, violence, or political instability can persuade citizens that extraordinary measures are necessary. Some individuals calculate that supporting authoritarian policies may protect their economic interests, social status, or personal safety. Others may fear reprisal - retaliation, punishment, or social exclusion - for openly opposing powerful political movements. Like an abusive relationship.
Grievance politics often reinforces these dynamics. It refers to the mobilisation of resentment and perceived injustice into political action. Rather than addressing structural causes of social problems, political actors redirect public frustration toward specific (often marginalised) groups. This strategy can create powerful emotional bonds among supporters while deflecting attention from institutional failures or elite misconduct. In such environments, attacking scapegoated groups feels easier than confronting authoritative powers.
“Pathocracy” (Andrzej Łobaczewski) describes a political system in which individuals with severe personality disorders or psychopathic traits disproportionately occupy positions of power. Although the concept remains controversial and is not universally accepted within political science, it argues that such leaders can manipulate fear and division to maintain control. Whether or not one accepts the theory fully, history demonstrates that charismatic leaders can exploit public anxieties and weaken democratic safeguards.
Furthermore, the phenomenon sometimes described as “suicidal empathy” (Gad Saad) also appears in modern political discourse. Advocates of this idea claim that excessive compassion toward marginalised groups and outsiders threatens societal survival. This rhetoric reframes empathy as weakness and encourages exclusionary politics. In practice, such narratives can make authoritarian policies appear morally justified by presenting them as necessary acts of self-preservation rather than exercises of immoral and unethical domination. To counteract this sentiment, “critical empathy” (Andrea Lobb) combines compassion with analytical reasoning. It doesn’t require abandoning judgment but encourages citizens to understand the experiences of others while remaining attentive to evidence, democratic principles, and long-term consequences. It’s vital to prioritise issues especially since political discourse tends to make our smallest concerns seem like the biggest problems to delay progress.
Economic narratives further complicate political behaviour. Many working-class and low-income citizens defend wealthy elites (and even their blatant lies!) despite any conflicts of interest. It ironically seems that the aforementioned self-preservation can be gambled and put on hold if it means a supposedly inevitable sense of glory and prestige is rewarded later on. This can be attributed to “anticipatory socialisation” (Robert K. Merton). People may support systems that favour the wealthy because they imagine themselves eventually joining that group, adopting their values and behaviours even before membership. Media portrayals of billionaires as innovators, entrepreneurs, and self-made success stories reinforce this perception, even when significant wealth originates through inheritance, monopolistic advantages, or political influence. A militarised corporate culture of cut-throat brutality needed to maintain their positions, something we seem to admire and ready to join despite meritocracy mostly being a mirage.
See my post on how being an indecent person isn’t just “human nature”: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNRvvmF5u/
The persistence of authoritarian cycles also raises questions about institutional design. Most modern democracies possess formal checks and balances to distribute authority among multiple institutions so that no single branch can accumulate unlimited power. Yet corruption and abuses of power still occur. This apparent contradiction exists because institutions function effectively only when supported by political norms, transparency, independent oversight, and public participation. An independent institution is one that operates free from direct political control, allowing it to monitor government actions impartially. Courts, anti-corruption agencies, auditors, and central banks are some examples. When these institutions are weakened through political interference, their ability to enforce accountability diminishes.
Many societies have attempted to strengthen democratic resilience through citizen assemblies and grassroots civic engagement (see list of links at the end). Their purpose is often to reduce polarisation and encourage evidence-based decision-making. Cross-party agreements represent another mechanism for promoting long-term stability. When major political parties agree on foundational policies, certain issues become less vulnerable to reversal after elections. This continuity allows governments to pursue long-term objectives rather than constantly shifting direction. However, excessive consensus can reduce democratic competition and public debate and so the challenge lies in balancing stability with accountability.
Many pre-colonial Indigenous societies developed governance mechanisms that sought to prevent corruption through communal accountability rather than formal bureaucratic structures. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy employed consensus-building systems that distributed authority across clans and councils. Andean communities utilised reciprocity systems and collective labour arrangements to align leadership with community welfare. Many African societies relied on councils of elders, communal accountability traditions, reciprocal obligations and social responsibility. Polynesian societies often linked leadership legitimacy to communal expectations and spiritual obligations. Although these systems varied significantly, many shared a common emphasis on collective accountability and the prevention of excessive concentration of power. Of course, most of us are dealing with larger scale nations that run on inhumane and unfair competition at varying degrees.
Reducing authoritarian recurrence therefore requires more than simply defeating individual movements. It requires addressing the underlying conditions that make such movements attractive. Strong civic education can improve historical awareness and critical thinking. Independent media can counter propaganda and provide citizens with reliable information. Transparent institutions can reduce corruption and strengthen public trust. Citizen assemblies and grassroots participation can create meaningful channels for public involvement. Cross-community cooperation can undermine regimes by fostering relationships across social divisions (something humans have been doing since archaic times), especially when shared goals outweigh differences. Or maybe that’s just wishful thinking and we need to BOYCOTT EVERYTHING and practice alternative systems away from a state designed to fail us.
The recurrence of authoritarian and fascist movements with cult-like behaviour emerges from the interaction of manufactured crises, psychological vulnerabilities, cultural narratives, institutional weaknesses, and political opportunism. Some citizens recognise these patterns while others do not, and even those who recognise them may support such movements under conditions of fear, insecurity, a sense of belonging, or perceived necessity. Preventing recurrence requires not only stronger institutions but also stronger civic cultures capable of resisting simplistic solutions, confronting historical realities (save this to your watchlist - Supremacy Without Borders: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRWIs-fzi82b49xGbweq5_MpkAHYO8UTC&si=JJH_FPmD8J16wGpE), and maintaining democratic accountability during periods of uncertainty. Or indeed separatist enclaves… the choice is ours.
“Banality of evil” (Hannah Arendt) + dog whistles = manufactured consent → eugenics + ecocide domestically and globally.
So what can we do when inflammation is the norm and allergic reactions are cyclical? I believe that the ultimate first place to start is with our egos, which shouldn’t be our enemy nor our master, but our healthy companion: https://egoexplorer.my.canva.site/
Citizen assemblies and civic engagement directories:
https://www.opengovpartnership.org/
https://www.forus-international.org/