Wanted: Megalomaniac. Must be prepared to sit in a chair and look menacing. Desire to rule the world a must. Being totally ruthless as asset. A speculation by: GF Willmetts.

In the old days, you would have emperors like Ming the Merciless who ruled the planet Mongo and was eager to take over other worlds in a similar manner. Being called ‘merciless’ might be the clue that he wouldn’t tolerate indecision or anyone attacking back and he always won. If you weren’t under his control, then you might as well be dead. Although it’s never shown how he took over Mongo, there’s a fair bet it wasn’t there by heredity means but by conquest. As such, this in the only way Ming knew how to rule. All in the name of megalomania. The delusion of being great or powerful except that as a leader of an empire, country or world, it is no delusion.



Our own reality is also littered with similar folk from the likes of Attila the Hun right up to modern day with the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Control is everything. Death sorts out dissenters. Dictators who once they had a taste for power saw no reason why they couldn’t extend their power base and take over other countries with their endorsed political regimes, puppet governments and the elimination of any opposition. Of course, there were little things like wars when other countries objected but if you were winning, then you would keep going or show a loss of face. After all, they were conquerors. They conquer. It’s in their job description. Ultimately, thankfully, they also lost. A lot of the time because they didn’t recognise their own failings or lack of resources.

Is it any wonder that such templates were used in Science Fiction and fantasy where ruling a world was considering small fry compared to an empire that extended over several star systems and even a galaxy although that does seem a bit ambitious, let alone hard to control. After all, unless you all have a similar ideology, it’s inevitable some rebellions will succeed eventually. However, with more worlds to conquer, it’s only a matter of scale but it still fulfils the desire of the megalomaniac, the ultimate control freak.

Coming back to Earth, could that be the reason why there has been a downfall in available megalomaniacs out there? After all, the likes of dictators like Saddam and Gadaffi had ambitions to increase their power base but failed miserably when it came to extending to countries further afield that curtailed their activities. We should be grateful that some of the much bigger affluent countries ran by dictators don’t want to expand beyond their country boundaries but then again, I suspect they have enough power struggles and the unusual problems other countries opposing them to make them think more than twice on the subject. Better to have a solid control of one country than shaky control of two. It’s also fortunate that megalomaniacs’ paranoia means that they don’t trust each other lest they are removed by their fellow megalomaniac. You wouldn’t want to be in a cage with a pair of them.

So what do these megalomaniac dictators do all day? It’s all very well sitting in their palaces with the best of everything and issuing whatever laws they fancy to keep their people under their thumbs but they must have some sort of agenda. Well, apart from fleecing their own country’s money to a secret Swiss bank account for the day they have to flee, that is.

Top of that list is keeping dissenters amongst your own nationals under control while other countries watch on as you can’t afford to show an ounce of weakness that can be exploited. There will always be someone opposing to what you do so getting rid of them makes for an easier life. Some dictators aren’t bothered what other countries think and quietly or not so quietly dispose of the dissenters and rebels. Occasionally, some of the more well-known political dissenters are kept under permanent house arrest, presumably to show how ineffective they are and to keep their followers in line and show what a nice person you are really. No doubt there is also some thought given to use this as a political point to other nations although it also makes a good smoke screen for other skulduggery. However, these can become the rallying point with a revolution. It’s a precarious position and nerves of steel that don’t become rusty.

In the meantime, if you’re a megalomaniac staying in charge, then it’s important to have the support of the military to back whatever you want to do. That also requires a certain delegation of power to said military leaders but not enough that popular support would turn them into opposition. Military take-overs is often the way the megalomaniac came to power in the first place, as with Amin, Galdaffi and Saddam, so the last thing you need is someone coming to power in a similar way over your own dead body. No doubt this accounts for the chaos in countries where their dictators are deposed or killed as there is a singular lack of natural leaders in the wings. Lucky for us, I should point out that leadership and megalomania doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand.

A dictator rules by suppression and fear. There is no choice unless you want to run an uncontrolled election. Controlled elections look better anyway, it shows you are going through due process even if the vote is rigged in your favour. There is no opposition to question laws and essentially you can do whatever you like. The dictator decides what you can eat, drink and do as jobs while not obliged to do any of the same things himself. It’s a bonus if your population loves you, even if it is by hidden guns. Dissent of any kind means imprisonment or death. A few decades and no one knows any different and for many, it just becomes a way of life. Such a rule tends to last only the life-time of the dictator. If a successor is found from the sons of the dictator, they have to show equal viciousness or face a power struggle from within the close circle at the top and that’s when things fall apart. Look what happened to the Caesars and Borgias. We have such power regimes on this planet still without me still naming names and countries to protect the innocent. With the Internet, such countries are all known as communication has made the world a lot smaller. If such a control is by political regime, than a change in leader will not change the overall outcome and the population continues as it’s got used to.

This template is so basic that it is always employed in fiction but does being a megalomaniac make it a safe occupation? Let’s look at the downsides. Wouldn’t you always have to watch your back, have your food and drinks tasted for poisons let alone keep lookalikes around in case of assassination? I’ve already mentioned keeping your military leaders under scrutiny lest they decide they’d like your job. Whether you’re a megalomaniac or not, paranoia comes with the job. Compared to that, the chances of an outside assassination attempt seems minor and I haven’t even gotten into the behaviour of other countries. If your own country has sufficient resources, you don’t necessarily have to trade with other countries. However, if you want to know what they are doing, it does make sense to have some connections abroad with a little trade and such, combined with a few choice allies obeying the old adage, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Being smart or cunning has to be an automatic requisite. Presumably, liking your own company and not trusting others totally would be included in the package but why be a megalomaniac running a country?

After all, you don’t need to run a country to have an empire. Anyone in charge of a company has control of employees. Business tycoons have shown to have similar powers without having to murder anyone although granted they buy their people with jobs and promotions and sack those they don’t like. They can even influence governments to do what they want behind the scenes and are ultimately the ones in control. You can have an enormous power base simply by running a bank.

Is this the modern template? That I’m not so sure about. If you investigate early monarchies, there were a lot of kingmakers circulating and I’m sure that hasn’t changed even today. They often outlast the monarch and often get to put the next one in position and have some favoured power along the way but aren’t impervious to being killed themselves. Even in democratic societies, there are a lot of choices made to choosing a leader even before it gets to the voting stage. Having the ear of the official leader would appear to be the smartest move to make. If anything goes wrong, who takes the flak? Wouldn’t be you. A perfect position for a megalomaniac and have his cake and eat it at the same time. But then, megalomaniacs haven’t come to prove themselves that smart when it comes to their own egos.

Puppet governments in this day and age are placed into power by other countries. There might be an ulterior motives of buying exclusive resources but it also gives some stability for a while until a democratic system kicks in. With a military power base from outside the country, these states are rarely seen to last forever. If anything, puppet governments are far too fragile and resentment brings out the possibility of a military dictator, often with a stronger support from the people, as witnessed by Castro in Cuba.

Again, these are all templates that are used in fiction. If anything, it does make you wonder how a world dictatorship can exist when countries can’t decide on anything for long. Added to that, our world is moving away from megalomania. Civilisation as it becomes more homogenised doesn’t seem to support it. The disposal of several dictators in recent years shows that they are becoming a vanishing breed and fewer, other than inherited dictatorships, are coming to the fore. No doubt the megalomaniac still exists, just that they aren’t getting to the top and rule by terror.

If it was possible for all the countries on a world to become united, would it support a megalomaniac getting into power and control the lot? Looking at the Earth, unless there is a possibility of another world preparing to attack us that doesn’t seem likely. The day-to-day decisions and ensuring people obey is a stress most people would avoid. You would have to be crazy or a megalomaniac just to want the job purely for power’s sake. Making a world’s population into the kind that you would like is never going to work because humans are so different from each other.

Although the Earth is an isolated world, the possibility of other star systems having multiple worlds with sentient life where megalomania is a way of life can’t be ruled out. If resources are unbalanced, there we can be clearly in Science Fiction territory because that’s how interplanetary wars start, providing they have easy access. This can also provide an outlet for the megalomaniac who has the drive to conquer and in a war, you would want to succeed. Dictators, no matter their calling, will have a desire to expand, if for no other reason than to ensure they have no potential enemies if they can do so. A sort of ‘get them, just in case they might come after us’ attitude is bound to develop after a victory. Motivating the military that way is relatively simple, conscripting civilians to bolster numbers depends more on whether they believe in the regime they live under.

Whether its countries or worlds, providing the population has what it deems its own personal freedoms, will tolerate a lot of things. Even without propaganda, if another country or world is deemed the enemy with sufficient proof, motivation is relatively easy even if they might not necessarily be war-like. If a species is war-like then war is inevitable. If you want to consider mankind’s own history, an alien species might deem us too war-like and stay away. Equally, they might decide obliteration is the safe option before we get under their feet. I tend to agree on some levels with Stephen Hawking that it might be wiser not to broadcast where we live until at least we show ourselves to be peaceful and not a potential threat. Then again, unless there is a means to circumnavigate the speed of light, we should be thankful that short of a passing starship, wars between worlds isn’t likely to happen.

So where does that leave the megalomaniacs? Are they dying out? Without a power base, they can be ineffective and if they are known for what they are, kept from gaining any real power. As we’ve seen in commerce and other business, they can be brought down by the mistakes they make with little help from others.

The worse thing that can happen is we forget what a megalomaniac is or we’d have a shock should another one rise to power. Spotting them isn’t always easy as any leader needs some elements of single-mindedness and determination in thinking that they are always right in carrying out whatever aims they have. It’s when they start doing things that is not in a population’s interest then the warning signs need to be flagged.

It isn’t the first time that Science Fiction has gotten things wrong but with a heavy reliance on megalomaniac dictators, this particular future doesn’t appear so likely any more. The template for the megalomania is based on old history. With our need to look into the future (sic), we need to examine fresh consequences. Will it yield a different sort of leader and how will it influence our fiction? If we ever colonise other worlds, would it give the opportunity of megalomaniacs to spring up again? Would the circumstances be sufficiently different that they will be stopped before getting any power? That, perhaps, is where the fiction will lie. What will make a leader will be something to ponder on. Hopefully, it might not be one without a hidden megalomaniac agenda in it.

© GF Willmetts 2012

All rights reserved
Ask before borrowing