The Dictator's Handbook

You know how at your most cynical moments, you sometimes think any political decision is ultimately just about maintaining power anyway possible?

You're right.

Bueno de Mesquita and Smith tell you basically what no one who truly believes in any political process (authoritarian or democrat) can tolerate:

1. political goal number 1 is to stay power
2. staying in power is about keeping your coalition of powerful support as small as possible
3. broadening your coalition and other such reforms really don't make a lot of sense if you want to stay in power.

It's harsh but the book is written so well and engagingly that you forget you're taking in a work of hardcore political science. Copious research and case studies went into making what could have been an extremely wonky read feel indeed like a handbook. The chapter's presaging authoritarian tactics with a democratic framework (i.e. ratfucking) are especially chilling and prescient given that they were written well before the rise of the alt-right and global populist/fascist movements.

Ever wonder why politicians behave the way they do?

This book will go a long way toward answering that question. It isn't a work of “political theory” in the traditional sense so much as a presentation of a theory of practical politics. It doesn't focus on lofty ideals or just states, it focuses on what people in various political systems have to do to gain and keep power, and how broadening the required footprint of support tends to produce better public policy, while narrowing it tends to produce autocrats who are propped up by a relatively small circle of essential supporters (often in the military/security forces) who are bought off with bribes, favours, and privileges.

It isn't just about dictators, though. The principles of practical analysis can be applied to any political leader in any system of government by asking whose needs they have to really satisfy to achieve power and retain power. I've found it has enhanced my understanding of–and ability to predict the behaviour of–Canadian and American political leaders.

It falls short of five stars because I think the authors sometimes are muddy in their use of their own conceptual framework, but that is a small quibble against a very good book.

I suppose that The Layperson's Introduction to Selectorate Theory didn't make for as snappy of a title.Bueno de Mesquita and Smith present a compelling if not cynical theory that seeks to logically explain the behavior of political leaders. (The approach of finding the logic in the seemingly illogical reminds me of the unrelated book [b:The Mind Behind the Musical Ear: How Children Develop Musical Intelligence 5581354 The Mind Behind the Musical Ear How Children Develop Musical Intelligence Jeanne Bamberger https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1267749057l/5581354.SY75.jpg 2321178].) Brushing against conventional wisdom, the authors see democratic leaders as no more virtuous than petty dictators; in fact, they argue that the motivations of all leaders are the same. The theory's fundamental idea, that leaders prioritize their own hold on power above all other considerations, seems obvious enough, but Bueno de Mesquita and Smith explain the sometimes counterintuitive consequences of this central principle with plenty of well-chosen historical examples. The final chapter offers suggestions for how to create a more prosperous, democratic world, given that politicians are only going to act in their own self-interest.There is plenty of praiseworthy content in The Dictator's Handbook. The theoretical framework it presents is useful for analyzing the behaviors of leaders not only in government but also the private sector and even organized crime. The chapter on foreign aid was particularly well-argued and essentially flipped my position on the issue. Some of the policy proposals in the book are bold and excellent, such as the identification of the American electoral college as a vestige of slavery and the proposal for its elimination. The authors also recognize gerrymandering as an important obstacle to consider. On page 159 Bueno de Mesquita and Smith even come close to proposing democratization of the workplace.I will say, as an American, that the book somewhat misapplies its own theory when it discusses the United States. On page 125 the authors describe access to higher education and healthcare as benefits of living in a large-coalition regime, but no comment is made on how “access” to these services still excludes many people. Many examples on the book are simplified for the sake of argument, but the description of lowercase-D democrats as beholden to the people's will doesn't always bear out in reality. I wish the authors had done more analysis of the ways that propaganda and campaign finance influence the size of a winning coalition. Bueno de Mesquita and Smith seem a bit too enamored of neoliberal economic policy for my liking, which is unsurprising considering that Bueno de Mesquita transparently advertises his work at the Hoover Institution.I agree with some other reviewers that the book could have benefited from more editing. Some historical examples reappear incessantly—I'll now never forget the story of Liberia's Sergeant Doe, but one does get the feeling that the book could have been trimmed down further. Some of the writing could be cleaned up as well (different terms used to refer to identical concepts get confusing), and more graphs would have been useful to clarify the authors' excellent thought experiments.If you have an interest in government or international relations, The Dictator's Handbook is absolutely worth a read for its central ideas, even though the manner in which they are applied may not always be ideal.

I like the ‘grand unified theory of politics' feeling that this gives. Most political theories treat democracy and monarchy as apples and oranges, there are separate approaches to describe each with some discontinuity at an unspecified point in the middle. Here, the author applies their ideas to democracy and monarchy on the same footing and views them as either end of a spectrum. Despite the elegance of this approach, it seems a bit reductionistic. Politics is a very difficult subject to nail down.

Recommended for anyone interested in political theory