It is important to note that none of what I have described so far is a denial of the power that division brings to the political table. Regrettably, we are as if not more susceptible to division as a political influence compared to unity, especially during times of tension and poverty. And in a democracy built upon political parties, division continues to be a powerful tool. However, this division cannot be constructed without a figure who can draw the lines in the sand: a leader who tells them who to hate and who to like. These types of leaders do not come out of thin air. Rather, like other leaders they are a carefully constructed character performance, built on ideas and traits which either appeal to the values of the people, prey upon their fears, or both. These performances can be subtle, often done through acts of generosity, labor, or community participation. Or, they can be bombastic, with strong speeches and verbal attacks on the character (or performance) of their opponents. Neither performance is inherently positive or negative, as a leader must balance their performance with the public perception of their character, and each type of performance brings its own appeal and legitimacy. But without a performance, especially an established one, a leader is doomed to be irrelevant if not fail; it is vital to their success and power.
Leaders who choose to define their performance by divisive politics (or “leaders of division”) are not unique in the way they construct their performance; many appeal to the same values that their more modest counterparts do to, often through the same methods. However, unlike their counterparts they work not through diplomacy and cooperation, but instead through domination and division. Leaders of division establish themselves as the sole face of truth and information, an undeniable autocratic leader who must never be doubted. This is best illustrated in the article, “A theory of informational autocracy” by Guriev and Treisman, where they delve into how autocratic leaders establish power through control of information. As they describe, modern autocracies do not tend to use violent repression as their method of domination. Rather, they use softer methods to coerce and fool the public into inaction and nonviolence, such as:
“...[sending] citizens costly messages about their ability (propaganda), [censoring] critical messages sent via independent media (censorship), or [bribing] the opposition elite to remain silent (co-optation).” (p. 2, 2020)
Through manipulation of information to the public, these autocratic leaders are able to maintain their power and legitimacy while fooling the general public into a sense of complacency; that their vote still matters and that they have no need to doubt their leader. However, as Guriev and Treisman explain, such acts of manipulation are costly and hard to balance, especially depending on the type and size of the society the leader is in. As they describe:
“[Autocratic leaders must balance] the costs of censoring the independent media and of broadcasting convincing propaganda. These relate, in part, to the structure of the public and private press that a given leader inherits on coming to office. Where the independent media is large, censoring its messages or co-opting its owners is expensive. Where the state media is already dominant, the task of reaching the public with biased messages is easier.” (p. 2, 2020)
Therefore in an existing democracy, it is much harder (but not impossible) for an autocratic leader to control the flow of information to the public. It is costly, requires a lot of coordination, and is prone to failure if major elites do not fall into place or cooperate. And with the existence of the Internet, the suppression of information becomes much more difficult. But there is a direct correlation with the division of the public and the consolidation of media. The less information sources there are for the public to access, whether it be news stations or social media websites, the easier it is to divide the public and conquer individually. If we are to fight a leader of division, it is key that we fight against the consolidation of media and information. The power of accessibility lies within the diversity of information. The more information that people can access, the harder it is for leaders of division to control public opinion and fragment the politics of their society. As Guriev and Treisman state themselves:
“Information manipulation prevails when the informed elite is sufficiently large to make violent repression costly but not yet large enough to combat the state's dominance of the information space. If political sophistication continues to spread, and if independent media emerge to challenge regime messaging, such approaches become less effective. As the informed elite expands, co-optation and censorship become more expensive, and the leader faces increasingly tight trade-offs. The more resources are diverted toward silencing the elites, the lower are ordinary citizens' living standards—and the more likely they are to realize that the leader is incompetent and should be removed.” (p. 10, 2020)
However, leaders of division do not exist within a bubble. While leaders of division tend to prioritise control over the media elites and information, they also need people who can use their control to establish legitimacy and domination over the public opinion. To achieve this, they need storytellers who can effectively ‘write’ stories to the public, ones that can create a captivating narrative that lulls the mind into a false sense of success and pride. This is where propaganda, and its creators, come into play as a key player of leadership.