Tackling the dictators?

As practitioners in the use of personality theory and testing, psychologists are well aware of the wide range of traits to which we are all subject, whether the 'Big five' personality factors or the dark triad of narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism.

Yet, the potential for leaders in democracies or dictatorships to show their dark side with devastating effects is not news: whether this is wilful alteration of the processes of democracy or routine denial of the truth, there are tell-tale signs that if left unchecked, leaders may continue to evolve their behaviour into something even more sinister.

Indeed, Steve Taylor's recent article in The Psychologist flagged up the work of Andrzej Lobaczewski in highlighting this, whilst himself under the constraints of dictatorship.

Perhaps it is this everyday nature of political psychology that also underpins explanations of extreme behaviour, such as Hannah Arendt's conceptualisation of the 'banality of evil', in which things that represent the worst of human endeavour become unremarkable and appear somehow 'normalised' to perpetrators and some observers too.

This begs many questions, not least whether some individuals who subsequently become leaders find their individual tendencies emphasised and amplified, owing to the 'reach' of their influence and also unreasonable and abusive behaviour facilitated by the opportunities that power affords them (see Haslam, Reicher, and Platow, 2011).

So, how can psychology make a difference?  It is important to consider a key role for psychological professionals, but again only within the democratic process.

Political psychologist Jerrold Post famously used his personality profiling of the leaders of Israel and Egypt in helping to broker a Middle East peace deal decades ago, so we know the potential for a positive contribution is real.

From the work of Post to the present day, it is clear from unfolding events that there is a much-needed role for psychologists, political scientists and many other disciplines in working together, perhaps in tandem with the United Nations and international governments to help bring about positive change.

However, what facilitates appalling acts by leaders is often a focus for speculation. Perhaps the role of distance – both physical and emotional – between leaders and the results of their behaviour is underestimated?

By ensuring the international forum for redress acts earlier, rather than later, to highlight leaders' behaviours, it could become much harder for them to continue in the same vein, as they would be obliged to recognise the consequences of their actions – whether directly, or indirectly as their country may feel the effects of sanctions far sooner.

By identifying leaders who are already embarking on a path of destruction for their own people or those of other nations, could it be possible for international pressure to be brought to bear long before an incursion becomes an invasion, and before acts of widespread discrimination become an unfolding genocide? 

While the considerations of vital resources continue to overshadow a perhaps more ethically-based approach to abusive regimes, it may seem hard to divine a better way forward.

Despite the hope that it is obvious to many, this bears repeating: the future of our species demands better cooperation between decision-makers, those with the financial and policy connections to influence actions, as well as with the representatives of the peoples impacted.

If Jerrold Post was still alive, perhaps he would be keen to point out how psychologists could inform these vital developments?