What Happens to Nations After Authoritarian Rule?

When Xi Jinping assumed power, he initiated a widespread purge targeting regional politicians, bureaucracy, media, and academia. This move, reminiscent of Trump's approach, focused on eliminating anything not directly tied to personal loyalty to Xi.

This extensive purge involved over 100,000 officials and professionals, shifting the emphasis from institutional roles to personal allegiance. Consequently, the governing cabinet has become the smallest in history, and the equivalent of the Joint Chiefs has been reduced to only Xi and an inquisitor, indicating a severe weakening of established governmental bodies.

Since consolidating power, Xi Jinping has dedicated significant time to authoring ideological treatises on 'Xi Jinping Thought,' a practice described by Zeihan as 'intellectual masturbation.' This intense focus on personal ideology has reportedly led to a collapse in genuine governance capacity within China.

Xi has reportedly penned approximately 300,000 words during his tenure, indicating a preoccupation with personal doctrine over practical state administration. This dedication to self-authored ideological works highlights a potential intellectual isolation at the highest echelons of the Chinese Communist Party.

Petersburg. This informal network forms the bedrock of Vladimir Putin's power.

Due to this reliance on an extralegal framework, traditional state institutions and tools of governance are largely inaccessible to the current Russian government. Putin's social contract with the populace promises stability in exchange for absolute political silence, reflecting the regime's unconventional power base.

This event underscored the extreme fragility and lack of depth within Russia's political structure.

The Russian elite is remarkably small, estimated to be fewer than 120 individuals at the beginning of the Ukraine war. This limited pool of power-holders highlights the highly centralized and personalistic control exercised by Putin.

Within this already tiny elite, the inner circle has further dwindled to just five individuals, with only two considered genuinely competent. This extreme concentration of power and lack of capable personnel at the top makes the state vulnerable to internal shocks.

Leaders like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Donald Trump share a critical flaw: they have failed to cultivate any lasting institutions that could persist beyond their individual leadership. For these figures, governance is intrinsically tied to their personal presence and authority.

This personalistic approach means that the leader is synonymous with the country itself. When these regimes eventually face a transition or the departure of the central figure, the absence of robust, independent institutions is expected to result in a rapid and comprehensive collapse of the political system.

Donald Trump currently lacks a clear successor and has no apparent plan to cultivate one, emphasizing personal loyalty above all else. Any candidate supported by Trump would be expected to demonstrate unwavering subservience throughout their campaign.

While Trump's political model effectively dominates primary elections, securing the nomination of his party, it often struggles to translate that success into general election victories. This indicates a potential limitation in broadening his movement's appeal beyond a devoted base without institutional backing or a broader succession strategy.