Getting a dictator into power?

I'm trying to write a story that has, what amounts to, a Theocratic Dictatorship in place. I've got all sorts of interesting tropes to play around with a story character arcs and I've been really excited about writing it and going into some detail of 'separation of church and state' and all of that stuff.

However, when it comes down to it... I'm having difficulty coming up with a convincing answer of 'Why the fuck does he have any power at all?'

I mean, I know truly awful people have come into power and done horrible and frightening things to others and etc, but... I suppose I'm having difficulty looking at the character as he is during the story's period where he's a obsessive mad villain and I can't figure out why anyone would give this man a crown and an army.

My idea was that he maybe goes on this great quest to defeat an evil empire in his background and his reward for doing so is the throne (What kind of a system of government is that?! Fairy Tale Logic!) and that's how he gets power but, even then, I don't know if that works.

Once he gets the crown, he kind of starts falling a part until he becomes the Dictator we know of in the main plot. He was a genuinely good guy, a bit with maybe a bit strict on the life rules, and became an awful person with power and access to conflicting perspectives. Maybe some kind of 'Not Yet A Villain!Character is a War Hero and follows x, y, and z to be a good person, thus I'll be a good person if I also do x, y, and z'??? Hitler ate Sugar but in reverse?

But, I still can't give a reasonable answer as to 'Why the fuck does anyone listen to him once the entire place has gone to shit and become a horrible dystopia???'

Hunger Games' Dystopia works because anyone and everyone who is oppressed is separated from everyone else and each other and dehumanized to shit among other things. Bioshock's Rapture exists because literally no one is listening to Andrew Ryan by the point of the game unless he mentions some kind of money or drug gain. And everyone is legit 'happy' in Brave New World. But I'm having difficulty with this working when it comes to a theocratic dystopia.

In general, dystopia is hard. When the vast majority of the population dislikes the government for a single unified reason, it doesn't tend to last long. That said, real life dictatorships invariably arise under the threat of external aggression, be it real or imagined. And even the classical good kingdom can be viewed as a theocracy, as the monarch is presented as gaining power by the grace of the heavens. In a religious culture, this gives them considerable leeway for otherwise unacceptable acts.

In particular, Julius Caesar did kinda sorta return from fighting evil barbarians, and his popularity with the army was such that he could rule Rome with or without the Senate's approval. Basically, they kept sending him on suicide campaigns, and he just wasn't polite enough to die, but instead got rather miffed when he finally came back home.

Here's an example motivation and characterization - the tyrant starts out as a competent warrior and respected general, gets pushed around by politicians unhappy that he was getting too successful, so he returns home, slaughters the lot of them (an initially popular move among the general citizenry), and takes hold of the throne under thunderous applause. And then it turns out, as it often does in real life, that one may conquer or even defend an empire on the back of a war horse, but ruling it the same way doesn't work out well in the long run. People still respect the guy, but yeah, he's just not cut out for that line of civil service, and gets more desperate and irrational as a result. Meanwhile, as deposing him would destabilize things even further, people let him rule in hopes of him choosing a more competent successor, and then quietly croaking on his own. Monarchy 101.

So yeah, I hope that's a useful start.

Hehehe. Funny thing you mention about hopes that they'll just die off... One part of my setting has effectivly made him imortal; or at least in the 'never ages' sense of imortality. I mean, he'll still die in the dreadfully ironic death I have planned for him, but he won't die of natural causes.

I see. Well, barring that, government in monarchic states still usually falls under the "someone else's problem" field, meaning people would rather wait for some other nobleman to do the dirty work. You'd be surprised at how nonchalant the general populace can be regarding obvious Klingon promotions in the upper echelons.

It's possible to have "authoritarian and bad place to live" without having "dystopia". After all, world history provides no shortage of examples of horribly repressive dictatorships that nevertheless had a fairly solid level of popular support.

Here's the thing. A dystopia is static. No change occurs or is even possible; somehow the regime has managed to gain such stability that it can stay in power despite poor conditions for its people. This is not the case in real-world dictatorships; over the long term, they are dynamic. The dance of power between the regime, its supporters, the population, and the different groups and individuals who want power for themselves is never-ending. Also, the thing that permits a dystopia is a complete disconnect from the outside world. The moment that barrier between the dictatorship and the outside is breached, the situation is no longer static.

So if you're willing to ditch "dystopia" and accept "dictatorship", there are possibilities.

So, wait, what exactly is the difference between dictatorship and dystopia???

A dystopia need not be a dictatorship - it could be a post-apocalyptic anarchy, for instance. And a dictatorship, AKA an absolute monarchy, need not be a dystopia, depending on the tech level - a fantasy kingdom ruled by a noble king is still a dictatorship, if a benign one.

You know, I always feel uncomfortable quoting myself, but in this case when I've answered the question in the post immediately preceding...

Dictatorships actually exist.

The more hyperbolic commentators might describe some existing countries (Soviet Union under Stalinist rule, North Korea, parts of Iraq and Syria under IS rule, etc.) as "dystopias", even if they were not. Horrible places to be, very often, but they were/are still dynamic and changing societies with shifting power structures and conflicts.

edited 29th Sep '15 4:23:04 PM by SabresEdge

I know you posted that. I just slightly got confused by the description/explanation and asked out of clarification. I apologize, I didn't understand it in my first read through and I didn't mean read.

edited 29th Sep '15 4:57:46 PM by InkDagger

So the question just becomes how a theocratic dictatorship would come into place, and that's something that we do have precedents for.

Iran 1979 is the go-to example for how the clerics won control of the revolution and established their power. Otherwise, there's the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan 1996 and the emergence of IS in Syria and Iraq just a few years ago. (In the latter two cases, it wasn't necessarily that they were theocrats that let them get into power, as that they were on the winning side and thus could dictate the form of government that they wanted.)

Diictatorships usually rise by one of two methods. Either the place was in turmoil before and the dictator promises to restore wealth (Nazi Germany). Or the inheritor of the throne just happens to be a bad person.

For a theocratic dictatorship, the followers would have to believe that the guy is a god or a very good religious leader. It would also have to be a religion that teaches hatred of others to motivate the followers to kill.

Not necessarily. The Vatican wielded enormous political and military as well as spiritual power back in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, complete with their own territories (the Papal States). Go back a few centuries, and the old Caliphates vested their leader with tremendous religious authority, and the title of "Protector of the Faithful" was the most important, most legitimizing one of their titles.

In both cases, the religion as interpreted had some provisions for killing and warfare, but weren't built around it.

As for how they came into power, well, state and regime formation is a long and complex topic, with a central question being "what came before?" Not every dictator comes into power in a democracy—most dictators in history did not. (Plus, "inheritor to the throne is a bad person" is irrelevant. "Dictatorship" isn't strictly relevant to "good/bad", and plenty of despots ruled with centralized power and are remembered as good men.)

Personally, I would likely use the situation where the dictator promises to resolve a crisis or alleviate dire living conditions in a bid to win over the favor of the populace.

Yup. In the words of Napoleon, "you don't want Jones to come back, do you?"

Ok, I wonder how many here share this opinion with me?

Instead of the nation becoming a standard dystopian hellhole that no one wants to live in, the dictator leads the nation on the warpath, starting with the least likable neighbor.

Personally I'd do the sci-fi variant where the dictator takes control of Earth and plans to conquer every alien civilization that has ever invaded the planet.

The biggest portion of threat posed by the dictator isn't to the civilization that he controls. It is to the neighboring civilizations that he despises.