What makes socialist leadership fundamentally different from democratic leadership? Why do socialist governments often drift toward authoritarian control?
In his book The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek explores how central economic planning creates an impossible need for complete social consensus. This tension between individual interests and collective goals reveals why socialism and democracy struggle to coexist.
Keep reading to discover the two main paths that lead socialist governments away from democratic principles and toward authoritarian control.
Socialist Leadership
Hayek argues that socialism is incompatible with democratic leadership because central economic planning requires consensus, which is often unattainable. When socialist leadership tries to direct the entire economy of a country toward a common goal—for example, eliminating unemployment—it needs buy-in from every segment of society. However, each segment will have its own interests, which might not align with the government’s plan, sparking tensions.
(Shortform note: Hayek’s analysis highlights what some say is a central tension of all democracies, whether they dabble in socialism or not: Not everyone can be happy. In The Dictator’s Handbook, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith explain that different people have different interests, making complete consensus impossible. But in a democracy where leaders represent large groups of voters, more people will be more happy more of the time. Hayek’s concern suggests a limit to how large that group of happy voters can be. While democratic leadership tries to represent and make many people happy, socialist leadership seems to try to represent and make everyone happy—which may be an unattainable goal.)
Hayek describes two ways that those tensions lead to the breakdown of democracy in socialist governments. These paths to democratic breakdown aren’t mutually exclusive, but we explain them separately for clarity.
Path #1: Divide and Rule
Hayek argues that one of the challenges of achieving consensus is that it’s easier to rally a large group of people around negative ideas than positive ones. He says that people with sharp intellects and broad knowledge tend to have varied ideas and beliefs, so it’s difficult to get them to agree on a single idea. Conversely, he says that people with average or below-average intellect and knowledge are more likely to share basic instincts and preferences—typically negative ones, such as fear and hatred of perceived enemies. As a result, leaders looking to build a large coalition are more likely to appeal to the negative instincts and preferences that many people share, rather than trying to build consensus around positive ideas which are scattered throughout society.
(Shortform note: There may be another explanation for our tendency to rally around negative ideas. According to the authors of Factfulness, we’re all prone to negativity. As a result, we either embrace radical and drastic solutions—like those presented by undemocratic leaders—or give in to hopelessness and inaction. The authors present several strategies for avoiding this: Expect the news to disproportionately report on negative events, accept that things can be both bad and still improving, and avoid looking at the past with rose-colored glasses.)
The ease of rallying large groups around negative ideas incentivizes leaders to appeal to the lowest common denominator to unify a group. They do this by creating distinctions with other groups and identifying specific enemies. This approach allows leaders to maintain group cohesion while having maximum flexibility to pursue actions as long as they can frame them within an “us versus them” narrative.
(Shortform note: The divide-and-rule path benefits leaders who want to stay in power at all costs but makes it difficult to enact meaningful change. As Ezra Klein explains in Why We’re Polarized, when an “us versus them” dynamic takes root in a society, voters support the party that they believe represents people like them and that will help them defeat and punish the hated others. This makes identities, not issues, the drivers of political behavior. As a result, it becomes increasingly difficult to have societal conversations around policy changes because the differences in identity hijack any debate.)
Path #2: Bypass the People
Hayek also argues that socialist governments either devolve into dictatorships or rely on so-called experts—people who approach economic and political decisions with a scientific framework—to decide what’s best for the entire society. Both these experts and dictatorial leaders make arbitrary decisions without considering the wishes of the country’s citizens, undermining democratic principles.
(Shortform note: Some critics of Hayek argue that socialism can coexist with democratic principles through participatory governance, which actively involves citizens in decision-making. These critics believe that central planning can promote collaboration rather than dictatorship if structured democratically. Participatory governance enhances transparency and accountability by ensuring diverse interests are represented, reducing the risk of power concentration among dictators or so-called experts. For example, the French Citizens’ Convention on Climate brought together 150 randomly selected citizens—as opposed to experts—to discuss, reach a consensus, and draft proposals for reducing France’s carbon emissions.)
Hayek also argues that socialism leads to the rise of immoral leaders. He explains that making decisions for the “greater good” often leads to totalitarianism. Leaders willing to forsake their morals to achieve collective goals justify their decisions by framing them as necessary sacrifices for the greater good. Hayek argues that many such decisions would be unacceptable in individualistic societies, which value individuals as human beings with inherent worth rather than inconsequential members of the larger group.
For example, a “greater good” mentality among socialist leadership can lead a country to impose restrictions on how many children a family can have to limit the national economic burden. This is similar to what China did with its one-child policy.
(Shortform note: Leaders across all ideologies can veer into unethical behavior—not just socialist leaders. Machiavellian theory—rooted in the political philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli, author of The Prince—suggests that leaders in pursuit of power often use cunning and manipulation to justify morally questionable actions. Leaders may rationalize unethical actions as necessary sacrifices for the sake of their vision—for the greater good in a socialist context or the pursuit of freedom and individual rights in a capitalist framework. This tendency means people who prioritize power and control over ethical governance are more likely to become political leaders, regardless of their ideological stance.)
