Authoritarian Persuasion

Authoritarian leaders are examined in terms of the means of taking power. This examination revealed differing pathways to power. As has been discussed, some authoritarian leaders ascend to the position of control where there is an established system of governance. These situational leaders are, de facto, operatives of a system that is already established. In contrast, the authoritarian thug takes power through force and often violence. Other authoritarian leaders shape the political will of their followers to assume leadership. From a behavioral perspective. The means of taking power is reflective of differences in their form of governing or in their length of time holding power. The examination of leaders who use violence to gain power is predictably more likely to use coercive forms of social control when compared with leaders who took power vie the popular vote, for example. It is also of interest to determine if the context of culture made any differences in how leaders performed in a specific social and political setting. Finally, it is also worth examining whether the means of taking power was indicative of the length of time staying in power. The current findings give a partial answer to this, and further exploration seems warranted given the clear within group differences so authoritarians who were our subjects.