Ruth Ben-Ghiat

Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Augusto Pinochet, Viktor Orbán - there have been too many authoritarian strongmen in the past century, ruling their countries for a few years or many, grabbing as much of their nations' wealth as they can, leaving no room for people's hopes or needs. Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history and Italian studies at New York University, has summarized the stories of seventeen of these men (always men), from Mussolini to those still with us now, including Putin and Trump. Communist rulers are not included here, for reasons not explained.

The book's chapters follow the arc of a strongman's career, alternating between the stories of her subjects. In the first of three main sections, the great man ascends to rule. Getting to Power came via Facist Takeovers in the early 20th Century, more commonly Military Coups later on, and today we have New Authoritarian Ascents - elections now often bring the new ruler to power. Control of the news media helps here.

Once in place the authoritarian employs his Tools of Rule to stay, per the second main section. In A Greater Nation the populace must be told that the greatness of their nation requires a return to a golden past, via the strongman, making America - or Italy, or Russia - great again. Colonies are wanted here. Lest people miss the point, Propaganda is essential to remind them of what they should think. Mussolini had radio; Trump has Twitter. The strongman's fitness for rule is underlined by showing his Virility. He boasts of his prowess with women; his bare-chested body is displayed for the crowd's admiration if that will work - Putin, also Mussolini before him. The strongman usually wants to enjoy his virility, regardless of anyone's consent. Here, Donald Trump could never (or never yet?) equal Mussolini and Muammar Gaddfi, both of whom had entire government departments supplying them with women, and warning the women to stay silent about what happened. Corruption is a must, to pay off underlings and cronies - and enrich the strongman himself, of course. This happens even as promises to eradicate already-existing corruption are given. Mussolini literally said he would drain the swamp, meaning the Pontine Marshes near Rome. The actual prosperity of the country is nothing next to the authoritarian's wants.

The last part of this second section concerns Violence. To me, this sickening chapter feels like the heart of the book. The corrupt state cannot exist without brutality against anyone who fights back. Ben-Ghiat outlines the torture and murder visited upon Pinochet's opponents, then goes on to the other nations of her story, ending with the Trump regime's ICE and CBP. Don't read this chapter unless you're ready for stories almost too terrible to bear.

The third main section is Losing Power. Resistance is always a possibility, if at the cost of the resisters' lives. Resistance may be by speech, or by bombs or guns aimed at the strongman. Finally, Endings come eventually to all, if only a peaceful death in old age, as was Franco's lot. Mussolini and Hitler died just one day apart, by murder and suicide. That many strongman stories end unhappily for the strongman is little consolation for the damage they do.

Ben-Ghiat supplies footnotes and an extensive bibliography.

The book shows that these stories are all, drearily, horribly, the same story. Strongmen all use the same playbook, differing only in the amount of damage they do. If only every citizen in every country could learn this lesson in time.… (mehr)

This book by Ruth Ben-Ghiat is excellent.
She divided the book into three broad sections: the rise, the 'tactics', and the fall.

There is no chapter on the conditions that cause autocrats to rise or fall. You, the reader, must draw the lessons from the chapters in the book.

When you read the book, there is a chance you will recognize your local autocrat. The book opens your eyes to the dangers these people pose. I hope we learn from the book and use the lessons for our benefit.

Well written, the book is relevant and a pleasure to read.… (mehr)

I thought the structure of this made it a weaker book. Rather than either being about one or two examples and following them through their careers, she followed their personality traits and the themes of the regimes. So I would start following one story line and then get sent off in another direction. I don't know enough detail about most of these people and it was easy to loose track of what was happening. It would have been a stronger book with perhaps just following one and clearly she spent most of her time discussing Mussolini and Berlusconi. I appreciated what she was trying to do but it just seemed to loose power and meaning when it jumped from leader to leader. Including almost nothing on some of them.… (mehr)

I was disappointed in this book, largely because I think the inclusion, semi-inclusion and omission of various leaders is either random or all-too-deliberate. The book purports to be a study of how strongman regimes are similar in that they have similar characteristics, such as violence, corruption, misogyny, &c. What is bizarre, however, is that the author simply waves away Communist regimes as being part of "closed societies," which to my mind arbitrarily excludes Fidel Castro, even though Francisco Franco is included. For that matter, there are occasional references to the Chinese and Soviet-era governments, which makes you wonder why the strongmen of those regimes were excluded in the first place. There are also a number of other curious omissions, such as Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Ferdinand Marcos and Juan Peron. Some of the other strongmen listed as "protagonists" in the front of the book, such as Saddam Hussein, and Recep Erdgogan, only flit in and out of the book now and again, which makes you wonder why they're included at all. The statement that Indira Gandhi did not seek to "destroy democracy" is quite dubious, considering she ruled under emergency decree for a number of years, unlike Berlosconi, Trump and Bolsonaro. If the latter three are included on the grounds of seeking to destroy democracy, the author doesn't really explain how two of them left office via elections, one twice (though the author does try to shoehorn in the "January 6th" incident). While some commonalities are discussed, I think the odd omissions of other cases, and the obvious reaching to try to tag Berlosconi and Trump as strongmen, make this a weak book, and it's not recommended by me.… (mehr)