Tyranny is bad for mental health

To begin with, let’s clarify what tyranny is and why we categorize modern Russia as a tyrannical regime. Two years ago, I defended my master’s thesis at Shaninka on the subject of torture under tyranny, during which I closely studied theories of tyranny from a historical perspective. Typically, regime classifications, based on political institutions, suggest that Russia is a personalist autocracy. The essence of such regimes is the retention of the "sovereign's" power by any means, from election fraud to political violence. However, this classification places too much emphasis on political institutions, paying less attention to the power dynamics at play. It's worth remembering that institutions are the "rules of the game" in politics, perpetuated through social and political practices. Institutionalists often focus heavily on these political and social structures, overlooking the very practice of establishing and maintaining power itself.
Take, for example, the Security Council meeting on February 22, 2022, where Putin effectively coerced his "vassals" into publicly demonstrating their weakness and dependence on him. What was the purpose of this? It was purely a demonstration of his absolute authority. This is a hallmark of tyrannical practice. The essence of tyranny lies in the ruler maintaining power by extending personal influence over various elite groups, affirming his authority through rituals and dividing opponents. The real rule here is simple: "I am the state," and the tyrant must continuously reaffirm this principle. Everything else, from courts to elections, is merely a facade—important for managing vassals and the masses, but not critical for maintaining power.


Can the current political regime in Russia be classified as a dictatorship rather than a tyranny? Absolutely, but there is a significant distinction between these two concepts that is essential for our analysis. A dictatorship is a form of government in which one person or a small group holds complete control over power in a country. The dictator's intentions, however, can vary. For instance, in the USSR, the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" was popular, referring to a just force of the people. Tyranny, on the other hand, is a type of dictatorship in which the ruler abuses power, acts solely in their own interest, and mistreats those they govern. A tyrant is usually someone who was given power but then abuses it to rule through violence. Conversely, a dictator is typically someone who has seized power through force or manipulation. From this perspective, authoritarian Russia could be considered a dictatorship up until 2022, when Putin ruled with absolute power but originally gained it through legal means. A key indicator of this is the 2008 election of Medvedev as president, allowing Putin to circumvent the constitutional limit of two consecutive terms. In 2020, the Constitution was rewritten through a process that loosely resembled legality—famously exemplified by the so-called “voting on tree stumps,” where voting practices were manipulated to ensure the desired outcome. This gradual erosion of legal frameworks shows a shift from a dictatorship, where power was gained and maintained through ostensibly legal channels, to a more overtly tyrannical regime. Following this, Putin decided to run for a fifth term, which contradicts both the previous and even the revised constitution. In doing so, Putin solidified his tyrannical rule—first by starting a war in Ukraine without considering the interests of citizens or the elite, and then by re-electing himself, disregarding all legal norms and holding elections in occupied territories. As a result, we are now dealing with a leader who, although initially gaining power through formally legitimate elections, later used it to launch a bloody war for his personal interest in retaining control.
A tyrant constantly shows the elites “who’s in charge.” For instance, a recent sudden replacement of a deeply entrenched defense minister with an economist, completely unqualified in military affairs, during a full-scale war, was clearly an irrational move from a military perspective. However, from the viewpoint of consolidating power, demonstrating authority, and managing the war economy as the tyrant sees fit, it makes perfect sense. The classic principle of “divide and conquer” applies. Of course, the tyrant doesn’t control everything—it’s impossible—but he constantly asserts his power by breaking all the rules, halting the functioning of any institution or elite figure as he pleases. This “sacred right to act with authority” is extended in all directions, supported by contradictory and inadequate laws, constitutional revisions, the direct violence seen in the assassination of rebel Prigozhin, and the public humiliation of Naryshkin. These are tyrannical practices, not authoritarian ones. In this sense, starting an aggressive war without any clear economic or political benefit solidifies Russia as a tyranny and Putin as a tyrant.
So, modern Russia is indeed a tyranny. Now, let’s explore how this Russian tyranny harms the mental health of its citizens. The basis of our discussion will draw from arguments in the article *Tyranny and Mental Health*
In tyrannical regimes, violence and torture as political tools are unfortunately common practice, and Russia is no exception to this rule. And while ordinary prisoners are often tortured in prisons away from public attention, political activists are sometimes subjected to torture in a way designed to make it as public as possible. This serves as a warning to others and reinforces the regime's control by spreading fear. After being subjected to torture, individuals are often forced to publicly apologize for their actions on camera, as was the case with activist Roman Protasevich in Belarus. Such coerced confessions are used by regimes to humiliate the individual and further intimidate potential dissenters, showing the public that opposition will not only be crushed but also forced into submission. This spectacle is designed to amplify fear and reinforce the power of the tyrant over both the individual and the wider population. The most striking example of public torture in recent months is the torture of suspects involved in the Crocus City Hall bombing case. Here, the demonstrative nature of the torture reached such an extent that law enforcement officials proudly released the footage to the public. This act not only exemplifies the regime's use of violence to suppress dissent but also shows a new level of normalization of torture, where the authorities feel emboldened to broadcast their actions openly, using fear as a tool of mass control. It is clear that victims of torture and prison violence often suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In addition to PTSD, many victims may develop symptoms such as chronic fatigue, apathy, paranoia, and impaired concentration. These psychological effects are not only a direct result of the physical and emotional trauma but are also exacerbated by the prolonged fear and helplessness that victims experience during and after their torture. The lingering effects of such trauma can severely impact their ability to function in everyday life, leading to long-term mental health struggles. But that’s not all. There is also the concept of *vicarious trauma* or *secondary trauma*, where PTSD symptoms can manifest in individuals who witness or are exposed to the suffering of others. This form of trauma affects not only those directly involved but also those who observe or hear about the violence. Witnesses to torture, even if they are not physically harmed, can experience severe psychological distress—such as anxiety, nightmares, or hypervigilance—because the traumatic event creates a sense of helplessness and fear that can deeply impact their mental health. As a result, the widespread use of torture, and especially its public display, can lead to a hidden epidemic of PTSD throughout a country under tyrannical rule. The psychological effects extend far beyond the direct victims, affecting witnesses and even the broader population who are exposed to these atrocities through media. This creates a culture of fear and helplessness, contributing to widespread mental health issues.
Moreover, tyrannical rule systematically destroys trust between individuals and suppresses civil society. In Russia today, virtually all forms of collective political action, unless initiated by the state itself, are effectively banned. This repression not only prevents meaningful public discourse and opposition but also fosters social isolation, mistrust, and a breakdown of community bonds—further deepening the psychological toll on the population.
Many social organizations often find themselves evolving into political movements. For instance, if you are involved in helping homeless animals, you might encounter situations where the state sanctions their culling, prompting you to take political action to oppose such policies. This illustrates how even apolitical causes can become politicized under a tyrannical regime, where almost any form of collective action or advocacy can clash with the state's interests. In these environments, attempts to create positive social change are often suppressed, forcing organizations to take a stand against oppressive policies, thereby risking retaliation from the government. And this is where the struggle becomes political—a battle for power, for the right to decide the fate of animals. As a result of suppressing any civil initiatives, social atomization intensifies—the erosion of social bonds and a sense of community with meaningful groups of people. This atomization leads to loneliness and alienation. A range of psychological studies demonstrates that the systematic disruption of social connections increases the risk of various mental disorders. Research shows that people experiencing prolonged social isolation are more prone to depression, anxiety disorders, and even cognitive decline.
The normalization of violence in the media is another hallmark of a tyrannical regime waging an aggressive war. Russian propaganda actively fuels hatred and trains people in aggressive behavior by framing conflicts as a battle between "us" and "them," dehumanizing the perceived enemy. Terms like "Ukronazis" and "Banderites" strip Ukrainians of their humanity in the eyes of the audience, suggesting they are undeserving of empathy and can be subjected to any kind of violence without moral consequence.
A parallel can be drawn with a 2014 study on the role of *Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines* (RTLM) in the Rwandan genocide. Researchers analyzed how mass propaganda via radio incited violence among the Hutu population against the Tutsi minority. The study design involved combining geographical data on radio transmitters with records of local violence to assess the direct impact of radio propaganda on mass killings. Statistical methods revealed a strong correlation between the strength of the radio signal and the intensity of the violence. In regions with greater radio coverage, the number of killings was significantly higher, highlighting the powerful role of radio in coordinating actions and inciting hatred. The propaganda not only incited violence but also provided practical guidance for executing murders, encouraging Hutus to take specific actions against their targets.
This example underscores the dangerous effects of propaganda in normalizing violence and dehumanizing others, turning entire populations into accomplices in atrocities.
Thus, propaganda can not only normalize violence but also escalate it through direct and manipulative calls for brutal actions. It primes the population to accept and even participate in atrocities, turning dehumanization into action through repeated and aggressive messaging.
A range of studies on tyrannical regimes illustrates the severe impact of such governance models on healthcare systems. For example, the Ba'athist regime in Iraq under Saddam Hussein provides a stark example of a totalitarian state where widespread human rights violations and ethnic cleansing led to millions of deaths. Under this regime, economic resources were heavily diverted toward military expansion and internal repression, causing vital sectors like education and healthcare to collapse. The regime prioritized violence and control over the well-being of its citizens, leaving the healthcare system to degrade significantly, with resources siphoned off for security and military purposes instead of public health​
This not only led to a decline in public services but also exacerbated the suffering of ordinary people, as the regime's focus on control and suppression left essential societal needs unmet, further damaging the population’s physical and mental health.
oday, an increasing portion of Russia's budget is being directed toward the war, resulting in reduced funding for education and healthcare.
Finally, the more power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual, the greater the likelihood that the state will engage in aggressive warfare. In political science, there is the concept of the “democratic peace.” The idea is that the more a government is influenced by its citizens, the less likely it is to start a war, particularly in border regions. People, by and large, do not want to die in a war that they are funding with their own taxes, so all else being equal, they are less likely to vote for a politician who intends to wage wars. Obviously, when a country goes to war, it inevitably leads to the return of combat veterans. Some of these individuals will inevitably suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), while others may not, but either way, for many of them, violence and cruelty become normalized and begin to manifest in their behavior. Research indicates that the prevalence of PTSD among veterans returning from combat zones ranges from 5% to 20% in broad samples and up to 30% among those who seek treatment.War has a negative impact even on neighboring countries. Research shows that the war in Ukraine has adversely affected levels of anxiety and depression in Germany. The result of the war for Russia is clear—an increase in all forms of violence, from domestic to street crime. This rise in crime began in Russia as early as 2022. Moreover, there is no plan for any systematic therapy for combat veterans in Russia. This lack of mental health support further exacerbates the psychological issues they face, leaving many without the help they need to cope with trauma, and potentially leading to further societal problems.


But that’s not all. In order to sustain the war in Ukraine, the state needs to regularly replenish the ranks of its armed forces. With a shortage of volunteers and contract soldiers, the authorities have made the decision to use prisoners to fill these gaps. This controversial move not only reflects the desperation to maintain troop levels but also raises concerns about the consequences of integrating individuals from penal institutions into active military operations. Recently, a bill was passed that allows individuals who are merely suspects in a crime, but not yet convicted, to sign contracts with the Ministry of Defense. This legislative move expands the pool of potential recruits for the war in Ukraine, reflecting the increasing demand for manpower as volunteer numbers dwindle. By enabling suspects to avoid potential prosecution in exchange for military service, the government has taken another step toward broadening its recruitment strategies, which already included prisoners. As a result, imprisonment as a deterrent loses its effectiveness for potential criminals, increasing the likelihood of criminal activity. This, in turn, leads to a rise in societal violence. Research shows that domestic violence has long-term negative effects on the mental health of its victims. A study published in the *British Journal of Psychiatry* highlights that victims of domestic violence are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The psychological toll of such violence can persist for years, further burdening individuals and communities. This intersection of increasing crime and untreated trauma creates a dangerous cycle of violence and mental health issues.


In a way, tyrannical rule can be compared to life in a family where the head is an abusive figure with traits of the "dark triad" (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Such a family fosters a toxic atmosphere that negatively impacts all members. Similarly, tyranny creates numerous practices aimed at making everyone anticipate the ruler's desires and appease him. This is precisely what members of abusive families do, trying to predict the abuser's actions in order to minimize the harm caused by violence. It seems as if most people in positions of even minimal power carry within them an "Inner Putin"—from hospital directors and school principals to security officials, bureaucrats, and lawmakers. This "Inner Putin" tells individuals what they need to do to survive in a tyrant's world. The primary goal of tyranny is to assert its control over the minds and actions of every citizen, turning the political body of the nation into an extension of the tyrant's own will, which obeys without question.
Studies on family violence show that it can manifest in various forms: physical, psychological, economic, or emotional, with the main aim being control and suppression. The abuser uses violence to dominate relationships, instilling fear, helplessness, and submission in their victims, including children. Similarly, tyrannical regimes rely on a pervasive atmosphere of fear and submission to maintain their grip on power, pushing individuals to conform to the ruler's demands for their own survival.
An abusive head of the family often exhibits personality traits associated with the so-called "dark triad," which includes narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. These traits make the abuser highly manipulative, selfish, and lacking in empathy, contributing to an atmosphere of fear and control within the family. Narcissism manifests in an excessive need for attention and admiration, as well as in the belief that their perspective is always correct, justifying the need to control the behavior of family members and expecting unconditional obedience. Machiavellianism is reflected in the use of manipulation and deceit to achieve power and suppress the will of others. Such individuals often resort to the tactic of "divide and conquer," isolating family members from each other and creating emotional dependence. Psychopathy, on the other hand, is characterized by a lack of empathy and a tendency toward aggressive behavior. Individuals with these traits often feel no remorse for their actions and may use both physical and psychological violence to maintain their power within the family.
Abusive families are particularly harmful to children's mental health, as they not only witness violence but also observe toxic behavior patterns. This exposure can lead to the development of anxiety disorders, depression, and socialization problems in the future. Research shows that such children are at a higher risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and may repeat cycles of violence in adulthood—boys often becoming aggressors and girls more likely to become victims. Early exposure to violence is also linked to the development of physical health issues, such as obesity and heart disease. These effects underscore the long-term psychological and physical damage that growing up in an abusive environment can inflict on children.
Thus, the horror of tyranny and its harm to mental health lies not only in the prevalence of violence, torture, and an atmosphere of fear and cruelty. The deeper horror is that tyranny attempts to replace the personalities of individuals with the personality of the tyrant. In totalitarian systems, a person’s individuality is also suppressed, but one can still find a place and role within the "party’s ideology." In a totalitarian country, one could be a talented doctor working for the benefit of a great cause. Under tyranny, however, one can only be the servant of the tyrant, a loyal extension of his will—nothing more. If this process continues for decades, the death of the tyrant may not necessarily mean the end of the regime, as the tyrant could continue to live in the minds of the people, their personalities crushed and suppressed.
Unfortunately, just as domestic violence rarely stops without external intervention or the death of the abuser, tyranny is not a societal disease that will simply disappear while the tyrant remains in power. However, nothing lasts forever, and tyranny will eventually fall like any unstable system—because one person cannot effectively and sustainably regulate thousands of social processes. That is why it is crucial for us to overcome social atomization and preserve the connections that will serve us when we find ourselves among the "ruins" of tyranny.
In his well-known book *Man’s Search for Meaning*, psychologist Viktor Frankl showed us that even in a concentration camp, one could take small actions aligned with one’s values. One such example was Frankl’s imagination, where he envisioned himself giving lectures to students on the psychological aspects of surviving in a camp. This helped him retain his professional identity and plan for the future, despite the grim reality around him. Another significant source of strength for him was his love for his wife. Even though he didn’t know if she was alive, Frankl cherished moments with her in his mind, drawing strength from these thoughts to continue his struggle. He also maintained inner freedom by choosing how to relate to his suffering—observing both himself and fellow prisoners, noticing how some managed to preserve their dignity and kindness even in the most horrific conditions.
Just as Frankl overcame despair in a concentration camp, we, too, even under tyranny, are capable of much more than we might imagine.