A couple of weeks ago I read that in Russia they’ve begun holding those “Vote for your favourite…” things that they do in Britain such a lot. Your favourite hero, pop song, Abba song, TV show, comedian, garden shed… In Russia, however, the campaign to “Pick your favourite Russian leader” fell on hard times because the lead runner was Joseph Stalin. I noticed in the comments on the article that somebody said that when a similar exercise had been done in Germany, they had made it impossible to vote for Hitler, out of a fear that he would achieve the same kind of acclaim. The Russian response was to badger people into voting for Csar Nicholas instead. It would be embarrassing for the authorities if every Russian’s favourite hero was a man who sent millions to the gulag; about as embarrassing as Germany electing the late vegetarian genocidal maniac, Mr Worst Human Being Who Ever Lived 1945-2008, as their favourite leader. In China, meanwhile, a bright and bubbly new generation of students adore Mao as though he were some kind of god. They have no idea that the Cultural Revolution or the tragically misnamed “Great Leap Forward” ever happened.
The same qualities that made them terrifying symbols of human destruction not only swept them to power but keeps them alive now and in memory. Our list of great bastard leaders is far longer than our list of benevolent leaders, perhaps because in the human mind, we associate a desire for power with evil. All those who are good shun it by default, and the heroes of many a book are those who profess themselves humble, as though it is power itself, the force of controlling others through personal magnetism (for that is the starting point for any great leader), that creates evil. Our figures of evil crave power, control, are idealists with great and terrible visions, and our heroes are modest, shy creatures who withdraw into the shadows or, as in the case of Frodo at the end of Return of the King, look slightly constipated by the whole affair.
Good leaders lead disorganised bands; evil ones lead marches, armies, organise automatons who are easily defeated by a plucky hero with a decent sword (yeah, you can tell I write fantasy for a living, can’t you). Yet both are compelled by great vision, both are convinced that they are right to do what they do. Although I have often read of villains who desire to be evil for the sake of being evil, for the lust to kill and hurt and harm, human villains of the real world, the towering monolithic forms of such people as Stalin and Hitler, really did think they were making the world a better place. It’s a frightening thought and difficult to get your head around. You want to believe these people knew they were evil, were doing terrible things to destroy everybody. Actually, evil like that can compel few people; it’s ideology that inspires, and ideology that maintains their presence in our world even today.
Interestingly, the villains of our fictional worlds always seem to respect the tilt of good and evil. It allows us the blissful feeling that we’re good, that nothing lies within us that might rise up to be just as bad as that of which they are capable. The great tyrant of fantasy, Sauron, is bent only on destruction, and Voldemort, at least in the film versions, burns with a hatred for all those not like him that Hitler might have appreciated, but although they both yearn for power, they have an equal hatred for things that are “good” and recognise that there is a fundamental axis. Our real life tyrants have known no such thing. They believe they are acting for the good of mankind, which is perhaps what makes them ten thousand times more frightening, and not least because they often systematise their violence in a way that fiction never does. They don’t read their acts in the way that others do. It’s why it’s impossible to truly drive them out; as long as they have followers who share their conviction that what they do is just, then they will always live on. Usually, though, amongst the moderate majority, the reason why these men are so pervasive and memory serves them well is because mingled through with the atrocities, the genocide, were deeds that improved the lives of their supporters, even if it is a terrible thing to admit. We want, desperately, for evil to be pure evil. Good can be flawed, but evil must always be that way. I think that’s why I dislike the word and all its applications.
As a commentator remarked in the Times, ideological conviction, new age ideas and utter evil seem to go together well. This was a response to the arrest of Radovan Karadzic, who had been playing a new age doctor of some description in Belgrade, disguised not so much by a beard but as a beard. Ideology is a deadly thing, because it demands faith and adherence. It has little room for debate, discussion and query. On the other hand, human beings respond to powerful leaders who know what they’re doing. Nobody is going to pay much heed to Gordon Brown when he’s gone. I have a dish cloth with more charisma than he; forever he will stalk in the shadow of Tony Blair who had that charisma and the all-important ideology. As a consultant recently reminded me as I compiled a report for her, it really doesn’t matter what you say, but it’s how you say it.
I suddenly found myself raising these debates within the context of Amnar. Faced with a choice between ideologies, each spinning a line about the other, which one do you pick? People like ideology because it’s like religion. It tells you what to do and how to behave; this is why skeptics are rare – it’s not natural to our thinking to question. We want to have faith, and when great men, often with interesting facial hair, stand up and command our attention with stirring speeches, we go along with it right away. It takes a long time for it to tarnish, and amongst those who never know the dark side of it, who are carried at the very height of the wave and surf it, its easy to remain faithful. People want hope, they want promises of problems solved – and it’s the way those promises are made, not necessarily that they are fulfilled. Humans respond to their leaders emotionally, not intellectually. We also like things to be organised and to have a sense that our leaders know how to handle difficult situations, to make tough decisions. That is a very difficult thing for a “good guy” to pull off, since there are always so many options to consider and things to be held in balance. In the end what we seem to remember is not what our leaders did, necessarily, but how they went about the business of doing it, and how well they persuaded us of the quality of their leadership. That’s what lasts, which in the case of Stalin, appears to be what has happened.