Authoritarian-Dark Triad Personality and Politics in Pakistan

Zulfiqar Gilanii

Democratic politics in Pakistan has degraded into a farce, and the country now closely resembles a dystopia. A critical factor in the descent is the entwinement of personality and politics, on which however there is minimal, and even that mostly tangential, scholarship. However, there is extensive, largely Western, scholarship on the consequential impact of personality on politics, building on which this essay provides a broad-brush view of the situation in Pakistan in that regard.

Groundbreaking Western studies in the 1940s and 50s found that anti-democratic and fascistic, viz authoritarian political attitudes and behaviour could be understood by utilising the notion of the ‘authoritarian personality’. That triggered considerable research that confirms that the enmeshment of personality and politics is a robust and consequential phenomenon, but also pointed to some of the weaknesses of the authoritarian personality explanation, an important one being that that explanation would predict that individuals with an authoritarian personality would demonstrate authoritarianism regardless of the cultural and historical context, and the current situation.

To address the problem, it has been proposed that authoritarianism is not a direct consequence of the authoritarian personality, but a result of the dynamic interaction of individuals with an ‘authoritarian predisposition’ and the situation that is perceived as threatening, which triggers the authoritarian dynamic, and is then manifested in authoritarian attitudes and behaviours. Further, the authoritarian predisposition is a reasonably stable personality tendency. Still further, the greater the latent authoritarian predisposition, the more intense will be the responses to perceived threat/s, and the higher the manifest authoritarianism.

Perceived threats to the ‘normative order’ (the shared standards or rules which specify what individuals should or should not feel, think, say, or do) are critical catalysts for activation of the authoritarian dynamic. Although individuals with an authoritarian disposition do not necessarily perceive normative threats more readily, they are psychologically triggered once they do. When problems of the existing order are identified and aired or it is challenged, there is a possibility of perceiving threat by the predisposed. And when so perceived, anxiety is triggered that is also projected onto the social order. Experientially, there is anxiety about loss of emotional composure, which is projected and generalised into anxiety about fragmentation or collapse of the existing culture and society, leading to chaos or anarchy. The perceived threat is thus experienced as an assault on the ‘flawless’ personal worldview, values, and way of life, and as well on the existing ‘perfect’ norms of society and culture. The anxiety triggers the authoritarian dynamic and authoritarianism in the service of maintaining psychological composure, a positive self-concept, a sense of security, and maintenance of social stability. Manifest authoritarian attitudes and behaviours are therefore defensive stances in the service of controlling anxiety and efforts to maintain a structure of society and social interactions that enhances sameness, and minimises or erases diversity of people, beliefs, opinions and behaviours. Authoritarianism is thus an outcome of the interplay between the internal persistent and latent authoritarian predisposition and external events perceived as threats, which dynamic results in the output of authoritarianism in the form of moral, political, ethnic and sectarian intolerance; militarism; aggression; favouring order over freedom, and derogating, stereotyping, and discriminating against out-groups, and idealising and cleaving to the in-group.

Given the authoritarian raison d’etre of minimising or eliminating difference, the pursuit of sameness, and continuity of the status quo, psychological alarm bells (of anxiety) of the predisposed ring loud when there is loss of confidence in politics and political leaders, and there are disagreements over ideology and the existing order. And if the loss of confidence is pervasive and there is a general sense that more things divide than unite, the anxiety is greater. Authoritarian responses are then geared to defend the values of homogeneity and unity, in conditions where these appear to be in jeopardy. The stance however is not based on logic or rationality, but fear. So, the existing is defended with passionate intensity and zealous actions, and at the same time those who support change are attacked.

When nascent authoritarian predisposition is strong, then higher anxiety is triggered by perceived threat/s, and the manifest authoritarianism is also higher. High authoritarianism is characterised by obedience and submission to established or ‘legitimate’ authorities, whether person/s or group/s. A sense of agency is poor, and there is belief that individuals lack the capacity, and maybe even the right, to question or alter things, which power some higher authority has. There is uncritical acceptance and adherence to societal norms, traditions and conventions, and greater conformity. Difference is frightening and there are difficulties with ambiguity and complexity. Therefore, there is a strong tendency to moral absolutism and veneration of a set of ideas and practices and denigration of the ‘different other’. There are tendencies for moral, political, ethnic and sectarian intolerance and aggression towards other persons and/or out-groups. There is a belief that the different others are wrong or misguided human beings, who are therefore children of a lesser God, not deserving of humane treatment. There is an inclination for passionate and self-righteous idealisation of the self and kind, a tendency to hero-worship, and to look for and defer to a redeemer; and at the same time there is demonisation, judgement, and punishment of different others. There is support of the idea that thoughts and morals should be monitored, only ‘right-thinking’ people should be free to air their opinions, and the ‘right’ thoughts and morals enforced. Thus, there is eagerness to protect the ‘common good’ by ‘stamping out’ offensive ideas and ‘cracking down’ on misbehaviour. And there is support and celebration of public policy, legislation, and actions that intrude on personal morality and private lives and that erode political and other rights.

However, authoritarian individuals could be flexible about the specific normative order or group they support or oppose, and their identification of ‘us’ and ‘them’ or ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’ may change. But their authoritarian attitudes and behaviours remain consistent regardless of who or what they support at any given time, so yesterday’s ‘devil’ may be today’s ‘saint’ or vice versa.

Although pernicious, authoritarian attitudes and behaviours are not indicative of pathology. Rather, they are responses to a reality, which in Pakistan includes political dramas unfolding daily; intractable moral conflicts; the stench of political and personal scandal and endless bickering and mudslinging; visible bitter divisions in public opinion; dishonest and incompetent political leaders who, rather than on popular mandate, take turns in getting into power on the shoulders of state machineries like the army, judiciary, bureaucracy and the election commission; breakdown of the rule of law, where laws are used to serve criminality, and as well applied unequally where some are above any law, and the majority are (often innocent) victims of its arbitrary application; and highly compromised criminal justice and accountability systems. While everyone responds in their own ways to this complicated, difficult and messy reality; there is greater likelihood that the same external circumstances trigger the authoritarian dynamic in predisposed individuals, which is then manifested in authoritarian attitudes and behaviours.

Key to the development of the authoritarian predisposition are the child-rearing and socialisation practices. (Psychological development is extremely complex and much studied, but those details are not germane for present purposes). Broadly speaking, individuals raised and socialised in a culture where the collective norms, values and traditions are considered more important than individual feelings, desires and beliefs, and where questioning the collective is discouraged or punished, then the collective starts serving as the overarching psychological scaffolding or framework for the personal. Individuals raised in such an environment are more likely to fall closer to the submission to authority end of the hypothetical ‘personal autonomy-submission to authority’ spectrum, and in the inevitable tension between personal autonomy and submission to authority, the latter often dominates.

Empirical research on the extent of authoritarianism in Pakistani society is almost non-existent, so the vote is out on that. Notwithstanding the ambiguity on the prevalence of authoritarianism as a mass phenomenon, as evidenced by public positions and statements, policies, decisions, actions, attitudes and behaviour towards ‘others’, high authoritarianism is indicated in a significant majority of the political, bureaucratic, technocratic and even academic and intellectual leaders (hereon ‘the cabal’). In addition, there also are indications of the presence of one or more aspects of the dark triad of personality, namely, psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism, i.e., there is co- occurrence of authoritarianism and one or more aspects of the dark triad (hereon, ‘authoritarian/ism+’) in most of the cabal.

The following descriptions of the dark triad must be read with the qualifiers that the characteristics of each of the three components are not binaries but spectrums, that some characteristics of different components overlap, and that their presence is variously indicated in most of the cabal. With that in mind, it is notable that individuals with higher psychopathic tendencies seek impulsive thrills, are callous, and engage in antisocial behaviours. They have a cognitive bias to perceiving hostile intent from others (paranoia), and have a strong proclivity for interpersonal antagonism, confrontation, and aggression. Their antagonistic tendencies are manifest in distrust, opposition, arrogance and self-centredness. Further, psychopathy has been associated with low capacities to recognise the contradictions in one’s opinions, beliefs or attitudes, leading to rigidity and reduced likelihood of change.

Unhealthily high narcissism is manifested in a grandiose and inflated self-view and over-confidence; vanity; attention- and admiration-seeking, exhibitionism and bragging; feelings of superiority, authority, and entitlement; and devaluation of others. For narcissists, derogating the ‘other/s’ is a way to bolster their own (grandiose) view of the self. Intrinsic to high narcissists is attainment of social dominance, general uncivility, and engagement in rude/angry/aggressive behaviours, particularly when criticism threatens their inflated self-image and esteem. They have difficulty ‘hearing’ others and are therefore low in empathy, and rather tend to propagate and impose their ‘superior’ beliefs onto ‘ignorant’ others. They are highly resistant to persuasion and therefore change. Finally, high narcissism is linked to reckless risk-taking, which at times is manifested in erratic or inconsistent behaviour.

Machiavellianism is the tendency to harbour cynical, misanthropic, cold, over-pragmatic and immoral beliefs; relentless pursuit of self-beneficial goals like power and money; strategic long-term planning, and manipulation tactics. People high in Machiavellianism develop and hone the skills of cold calculation, cunning and deception for manipulation purposes. Although Machiavellians can tell the truth, they do not feel a moral reason to do so if it does not benefit them, and similarly have no compunction indulging in mendacity if considered beneficial. They display malevolent behaviours to gain control over others, tend to be bullies, have lower pro-victim attitudes, and much of their discourse, including humour, is laced with negativity and aggression. Like psychopathy, Machiavellianism also has an aggressive and malicious side, and they have little hesitancy in steamrolling or annihilating those that they feel are standing in their way.

In Pakistan, widespread and increasing political discontent and disenchantment, instability and social disorder and economic decline are frightening for most, but are triggering the authoritarian+ dynamic amongst most of the cabal, which is manifested in authoritarian+ attitudes and behaviours. And the situation is by now so topsy turvy that those with greater authoritarian+ characteristics have better chances of advancement in politics as well as in other fields, and in that regard nepotism of the disturbed by the disturbed is rampant.

The driving motivation of the cabal is attainment of political power and financial benefits, which are mutually reinforcing. The created loopholes in accountability laws and operative practices enables getting away with massive financial gains attained through corrupt practices and abuse of authority. Though blatantly immoral in a landscape of crushing poverty of the majority, various lucrative perks and benefits are enjoyed by declaring them technically ‘legal’. Even when there is documented evidence of corruption and/or abuse of authority by those in power, there is looking away. In the rare instances when accountability processes are started when out of power, on return to power there is whitewashing through self-beneficial malign legislation. So, remaining unaccountable and above the law is a powerful instrument for attaining and maintaining power and wealth, which further entrenches authoritarianism+, as well as criminality in the upper echelons.

The authoritarianism+ characters are thus powerful, wealthy, and have a strong sense of entitlement. There also is self-perpetuation through various combinations of lineage, propaganda, co-option, blackmail, or brute force (incarcerations, torture, kidnappings, disappearances, extra-judicial killings and outright murders). There is unconcern about the legitimacy of power, and the toolkit for attaining it by any means is comprehensive, including: varying degrees of oppression of the opposition; creation of legal or often not-so-legal hurdles in opposing candidates contesting elections; gerrymandering of constituencies and tampering of voters’ lists, and rigging, pre-poll, on election day, and in the tampering and declaration of results post-election. Consequently, such characters and their families and those they patronise have been directly and/or indirectly in power throughout the country’s history.

Most importantly, authoritarian+ politics have eroded and, in many instances inverted, the moral bases of social interaction and politics, and fractured the social contract. In the authoritarianism+ moral ecology, logic and rationality are notable by their absence. ‘Truth’ is defined by the powerful without concern for facts. Lying by omission or commission and rampant hypocrisy are the norms. Trust is a fool’s venture, which is often costly and painful, so relationships are opportunistic and transactional. Might is unashamedly right, so the application, or not, of law depends on ‘title’ and not criminal actions or innocence.

The imprints of authoritarianism+ on politics, morality and society have given rise to an order where the powerful few continue getting more powerful, the rich even richer, and the unaccountable more unaccountable. At the same time the majority that is oppressed are more oppressed, and their rights of life, property, justice, free association and speech and equality of socioeconomic opportunity continue declining. However, with increasing awareness, there is questioning of, and resistance to, the authoritarian+ order. That in turn has increased the extent and intensity of the oppression, which then raises the spread and intensity of resistance. And so goes on the escalating battle between the, broadly speaking, two arcs of morality and politics in Pakistan.