On February 25, 1956, Nikita Khrushchev, first secretary of the Soviet Communist Party and chairman of the council of ministers, delivered his famous "secret speech" to the 20th Congress of the party. For the previous few decades, the Soviet Union had been dominated by one man, Josef Stalin. Starting as a humble adherent of Marxist-Leninist principles and a devoted follower of Lenin, Stalin gradually established a regime of acute repression while at the same time establishing a cult of personality all of his own.
He assured his omnipresence in many different ways. Factories, mines, cities, schools, sanatoriums, and various awards bore his name. Millions of his portraits and statues were set up in public spaces nationwide. Fine arts, sculpture, literature, poetry, music and films of that period displayed adoration for Stalin, later called Staliniana. The state-controlled media endlessly churned out the image of Stalin as the undisputed, much-loved leader of the Soviet Union. Individual and collective letters of gratitude from workers poured in in millions.
As he grew in power and used it mercilessly, flattery and worship of the leader became the order of the day. Lavrentiy Beria, chief of the Soviet secret police, published a book dedicated to Stalin with the dedication: “To my dear, adored master, to the Great Stalin.” Another of Stalin's close associates, Lazar Kaganovich, toasted Stalin as the 'steel founder of our socialist construction' who had led the 'socialist furnace without accidents and slow-downs' and 'smelted steel of a higher and unprecedented category'. It was mandatory from 1935 onwards to speak of Stalin only in the most glowing terms; sycophantic speeches were given even by his opponents. Referring to Stalin as 'the great leader', 'father of the people', 'the wise helmsman', 'the genius of our epoch' and 'the titan of the world revolution' became common.
Over time, the cult developed overtones of religious ritualism. Stalin appeared in pictures and statues in poses reminiscent of Christ and Christian saints. At home, people turned his picture the other way when they wanted to speak freely to one another. His ‘spiritual’ dominance was everywhere, not least in the vast organised events where masses gathered together to catch a glimpse of the supreme leader and pay obeisance to him. By the 1930s, icons associating Stalin with Christ were standard in public life. People would similarly pray and cross themselves before Stalin's picture.
Such utter subservience has not been confined to Stalin. In the 1980s, Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu was called the giant of the Carpathians, the source of our light, the treasure of wisdom and charisma, the great architect, the celestial body and the new morning star by public figures. In Zaire in 1975, Mobutu Sese Seko was hailed as a new prophet and messiah. Franco's sycophants compared him to Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Napoleon, El Cid, Charles V and most of the kings of the Golden Age of Spain, calling him a military genius, the sun and the father of peace. In Syria in the 1990s, President Hafiz al-Assad was praised as the country's premier pharmacist, as well as the country's premier teacher, doctor and lawyer, among other things.
Indeed, a personality cult can be developed in any country by any leader with a combination of massive self-projection, praise from self-serving sycophants and repression by the instruments of governance—in short, a cocktail of fear and intense publicity. Under such circumstances, lies can become truths and citizens, deluded by the fantasy created by the dictator and his lieutenants, and the overwhelming fear created by his guards and bureaucrats, can sing the same tune.
Speaking about Stalin, psychologist Kurt Lewin said the leader’s cult was “not just a ruling device” but “generated by the psyche of a man whose vanity was unsatiable [sic]”, the outcome of a “deep-seated psychological urge”. Erich Fromm wrote of Stalin as a mental and physical sadist who wanted to have “absolute and unrestricted control” over human beings and desired to become a god over others.
This is precisely what Khrushchev said in his secret speech. He talked of how “the practice of mass repression through the government apparatus was born, first against the enemies of Leninism—Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Bukharinites, long since politically defeated by the party—and subsequently also against many honest Communists, against those party cadres who had borne the heavy load of the Civil War and the first and most difficult years of industrialisation and collectivisation, who had fought actively against the Trotskyites and the rightists for the Leninist party line”
He said, "Stalin, on the other hand, used extreme methods and mass repressions at a time when the Revolution was already victorious, when the Soviet state was strengthened, when the exploiting classes were already liquidated, and socialist relations were rooted solidly in all phases of the national economy when our Party was politically consolidated and had strengthened itself both numerically and ideologically." He reminded the party that Lenin had warned the Soviet Congress of Stalin's instability. Khrushchev's words were received with warm applause, and the Soviet Union turned back to the ways of Lenin.
Democracy is not a sufficient bulwark against the emergence of leaders with dictatorial tendencies. We have seen during the Emergency how the instruments of democracy could be warped and twisted. Democracy lives on the fairness and neutrality of institutions. The same formula for the aggrandisement of authority can also be used in democracies. If the leader chooses to magnify his image at the cost of the exchequer and with the help of a few sycophants around him, if he captures institutions and bends them to his will, if he uses his regulatory and investigative agencies to crush those opposed to him, if he creates discord within society to consolidate his power, a democratic country too can be ruled autocratically. A great deal depends on the leader's choices.
In the words of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, “When the state acquires all powers, both political and economic, the result is a decline of dharma.”
K M Chandrasekhar
Former Cabinet Secretary and author of As Good as My Word: A Memoir
(Views are personal)
(kmchandrasekhar@gmail.com)