There exists a myth in Western societies that individuals have strong philosophical and ideological convictions against dictatorships. It is comforting to think that within oneself and one’s neighbours sits a moral arbiter ready to cast out the impulses that made possible history’s worst tragedies. The disheartening reality, however, is that there is in most people a deep temptation toward unrestrained forms of government. Dictatorships are not reviling; they are seductive.

The democratic era has reshaped much of the Western (and non-Western) world, but for most of history—with notable exceptions—the West has been defined by autocracy and oligarchy. Delve beneath the surface and there is a historical, ideological and intellectual well from which the impulse toward dictatorship springs.

Defensive instincts make the modern individual cry that the recipe for past tyranny was in non-transferable historical circumstances, rather than in the minds and passions of people. We commonly view ourselves as the enlightened inheritors of deep-rooted democratic norms, with the philosophy of limited government and individual liberty tattooed on our hearts. It is, however, worth foregoing the back-patting for a moment to consider whether we actually understand the self-control and ideological fortification required to maintain and propagate a system that is inefficient by design—as Western democracy generally is.

Consider the present circumstances of political decision-making and popular support. This author would suggest that when individuals care deeply about issues, checks and balances begin to feel like dangerous barriers to achieving necessary outcomes. Whether it is the desire to protect the environment, correct a social injustice, preserve culture and heritage, or restore a sense of lost illustriousness, if passion and conviction run high—or if circumstances appear desperate enough—they erode belief in the utility and feasibility of structural safeguards on power.

Consider—to use modern hypotheticals—if an American president violated the constitutional devolution of powers between the Federal and State governments in order to implement sweeping environmental reforms. Would the political left rally against it on the grounds of constitutional invalidity? If a Canadian prime minister permanently disregarded aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in order to stop the spread of a contagion, would the Canadian people rally for liberty? If a nationalist party in Europe extinguished the constitutional barriers that prevented the deportation of immigrants, would their right-leaning voters demand the policy be reversed?

The uncomfortable truth is that a great number of people relish the idea of discarding inefficient institutions when they prevent the accomplishment of deeply-held political or social goals. In tumultuous times, results accomplished often justify means taken. The drive toward autocratic and efficient governance at the expense of liberty is not a transient or superficial instinct but a fallback to a deep part of the West’s history, intellect and culture (discussed in more detail here).

We do not revile dictators, and to pretend otherwise is to risk creating more of them.