That fails to understand how power in exceptional situations persists: namely that it still must be supported by key stakeholders.
If a leader were to summarily arrest large numbers of random citizens, suddenly they'd lose the support of citizens, one of the key pillars keeping them in power.
Which is why you see empowered and pervasive secret police institutions in societies like this -- you require a credible and effective alternative to popular support.
> That fails to understand how power in exceptional situations persists
I was describing how dictators concentrate power to themselves using reasonable-sounding pretexts during the initial stages of self-coups, not how the regimes use the acquired powers to self-sustain.
> ...suddenly they'd lose the support of citizens, one of the key pillars keeping them in power.
Dictators, and political incumbents in general don't need support (in a positive, active sense) to go about the business of exercising political power they already wield.
On the flip side, they need a lack of unified opposition to avoid being voted out/toppled, hence dictators lean on corrupting the courts, use the secret police to disappear opposition, and the like. Autocrats will be very happy with a 0.05% approval/99.9% disapproval ratings, as long as their physical security is not threatened by riotous mobs, and their political power unchallenged.
Exactly, this is analogous to "sensitivity/specificity" of a test, the test is if they can be trusted to live autonomously in society
- most sensitive: arrest everyone you suspect, lots of innocents locked up
- trade-off : some innocents locked up
- most specific: arrest only people you are 100% sure are criminals, lots of them get let off due to lack of evidence / inability to prove
You can frame it as a moral question, lock up 100% of criminals and 1 innocent person, or 0 innocent people and only 50% of criminals.
There is a separate, more subjective argument that knowingly locking up innocents is a slippery slope that will lead to a corrupt state.
From a pure ethics standpoint, this is "fruit from the poisoned tree" i.e. doing something unethical to achieve positive result, in this case, locking up an innocent to cause crime to plummet.
One thing is for sure, if he went back up for election and got in through strong popular support, the society replied and said they support living in such an environment. If more innocents are locked up maybe the feedback would change.
If a leader were to summarily arrest large numbers of random citizens, suddenly they'd lose the support of citizens, one of the key pillars keeping them in power.
Which is why you see empowered and pervasive secret police institutions in societies like this -- you require a credible and effective alternative to popular support.