Authoritarian and quasi‑authoritarian regimes have mastered a political sleight of hand: they insist that the public is unified, politically conscious, and freely aligned with the state’s geopolitical positions, even when the opposite is true. Assertions that “the people stand with Gaza,” or “the people oppose invading Iran,” are not reflections of public sentiment but state‑authored scripts. These narratives are designed to erase the distinction between state and society, replacing authentic civic expression with a curated simulation of consent (Havel 1978).
This chapter examines the mechanisms through which regimes construct these pseudo‑voices: gaslighting the public, co‑opting dissent through charity and controlled activism, and intimidating those who resist incorporation. The result is a political environment in which the people are visible but voiceless—present in propaganda, absent in decision‑making.
- The Illusion of a Unified Public
When regimes claim to speak “for the people,” they are not reporting public opinion; they are prescribing it. The state’s narrative becomes the people’s narrative by assertion alone. This rhetorical move collapses the boundary between ruler and ruled, implying that dissent is not merely disagreement but betrayal of the collective (Wedeen 1999).
The absence of visible dissent is then treated as evidence that the regime’s claims are true. State media amplifies this illusion, creating a feedback loop in which the public sees only state‑approved voices and concludes that they must be alone in their doubts. This is political gaslighting at scale: the systematic invalidation of the public’s own perceptions of fear, coercion, or disagreement (Stover 2020).
- Gaslighting as a Mode of Governance
Gaslighting is not an incidental tactic; it is a governing strategy. It destabilizes the public’s sense of reality, making it difficult to distinguish between genuine civic participation and state‑manufactured performance.
2.1. Manufactured Consensus
Regimes routinely stage rallies, choreograph interviews, and selectively publish polling data to create the appearance of unanimous support. These spectacles are designed to signal that persuasion has already occurred and that dissent is both futile and abnormal (Guriev and Treisman 2019).
2.2. Inverted Agency
Gaslighting also involves reframing coercion as empowerment. When the state declares that “the people have spoken,” it transforms silence into consent and coerced participation into voluntary activism (Kuran 1995).
- Co‑optation Through Charity and Controlled Activism
When gaslighting alone is insufficient, regimes turn to co‑optation—absorbing potential dissenters into state‑approved channels that mimic activism while neutralizing its political content.
3.1. Charity as a Mechanism of Control
Authoritarian welfare systems often rely on discretionary charity, subsidies, and “community initiatives” to cultivate dependency and gratitude. These programs are framed not as rights but as benevolent gifts from the state (Cammett and MacLean 2014).
3.2. The Illusion of Participation
Regimes also create controlled forms of activism—state‑aligned NGOs, youth groups, cultural associations, and “solidarity campaigns.” These organizations give citizens the impression of political engagement while ensuring that all activity remains within boundaries set by the state (Carothers and Brechenmacher 2014).
- When Co‑optation Fails: Intimidation and Selective Repression
Not everyone can be absorbed into the regime’s ecosystem of controlled activism. For those who resist, intimidation becomes the default tool.
4.1. Social and Economic Pressure
Dissenters may face job loss, bureaucratic harassment, or denial of services. These pressures are often informal, allowing the state to maintain plausible deniability while ensuring compliance (Levitsky and Way 2010).
4.2. Public Shaming and Moral Framing
The regime may label dissenters as traitors, extremists, or foreign agents. This moral framing isolates individuals from their communities and deters others from following their example (Benford and Snow 2000).
4.3. The Threat of Force
In more repressive contexts, the state deploys surveillance, arrests, or targeted violence. The goal is not mass repression but selective, symbolic punishment—enough to remind the public that the cost of authentic political expression is high (Davenport 2007).
- Case Study: Iran’s “Anti‑War” Consensus
Iran provides a clear example of how regimes manufacture the appearance of a unified public stance. When officials claim that “the Iranian people oppose foreign intervention,” they present this as a spontaneous expression of national sentiment. In reality, the state tightly controls the discursive environment in which such sentiments can be expressed (Keshavarzian 2007).
Public demonstrations framed as “anti‑war” rallies are often organized by state‑aligned institutions, with attendance incentivized through workplace pressure, university requirements, or bureaucratic consequences. Meanwhile, genuine anti‑regime or anti‑militarization voices face severe repression. The result is a curated anti‑war consensus that reflects the regime’s geopolitical strategy rather than the public’s actual preferences.
- Case Study: Gaza Solidarity as a Tool of Domestic Control
In several Middle Eastern states, expressions of solidarity with Gaza are tightly choreographed by the regime. Governments present themselves as champions of the Palestinian cause, using this stance to bolster their legitimacy and deflect attention from domestic grievances (Lynch 2016).
State‑organized rallies, charity drives, and “solidarity campaigns” create the appearance of mass mobilization. Yet these activities often serve dual purposes: they reinforce the regime’s ideological narrative and provide a controlled outlet for public emotion. Independent activism—especially activism that links solidarity with Gaza to critiques of domestic repression—is swiftly suppressed.
- Case Study: Egypt’s Manufactured “Unity” Under Sisi
Egypt under Abdel Fattah el‑Sisi offers a textbook example of how regimes weaponize national crises to manufacture consensus. The government frequently claims that “the Egyptian people stand united” behind its positions on Gaza, counterterrorism, or regional diplomacy. Yet the public sphere is so tightly controlled that alternative views cannot surface (El‑Ghobashy 2021).
Pro‑government rallies are often organized through state institutions, with public‑sector employees pressured to attend. Meanwhile, independent activism—whether pro‑Palestinian, pro‑democracy, or anti‑corruption—is criminalized under expansive counterterrorism laws. The regime also uses charity networks tied to the military and intelligence services to cultivate loyalty and dependency, framing these programs as evidence of national unity.
The result is a political environment in which “unity” is not an organic social fact but a manufactured performance enforced through surveillance, patronage, and fear.
- Case Study: Turkey’s Controlled Populism
Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan blends electoral politics with authoritarian control, producing a hybrid system in which the government claims to speak for “the national will” while systematically suppressing dissent (Esen and Gumuscu 2016).
Pro‑government mobilization around Gaza, Syria, or Kurdish issues is often framed as an expression of authentic popular sentiment. Yet the media landscape is dominated by pro‑government outlets, and civil society organizations aligned with the ruling party receive preferential treatment. Independent activism—especially Kurdish, leftist, or secular organizing—is met with arrests, smear campaigns, or legal harassment.
Erdoğan’s government also deploys a sophisticated charity‑patronage network through religious foundations and party‑aligned NGOs. These organizations provide social services while reinforcing ideological loyalty, blurring the line between welfare and political mobilization.
- Case Study: Russia’s “Patriotic Consensus”
Russia under Vladimir Putin has perfected the art of manufacturing patriotic consensus. The state claims that “the Russian people” uniformly support its positions on Ukraine, NATO, or foreign intervention. This narrative is sustained through a combination of propaganda, coercion, and controlled civic participation (Greene and Robertson 2019).
State‑organized rallies, youth movements like Nashi, and patriotic education programs create the appearance of mass mobilization. Independent activism—whether anti‑war, pro‑democracy, or environmental—is met with surveillance, arrests, or designation as “foreign agents.” The regime also uses targeted welfare programs and regional patronage networks to cultivate loyalty, especially in economically vulnerable areas.
The result is a political environment in which patriotism is not a spontaneous sentiment but a state‑manufactured identity enforced through a blend of incentives and intimidation.
- The Outcome: A Public That Cannot Speak for Itself
Across these cases—Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Russia, and states leveraging Gaza solidarity—the pattern is consistent. Through gaslighting, co‑optation, and intimidation, regimes construct a political environment in which the people cannot articulate their own interests. Their voices are replaced by a state‑authored script that claims to represent them while systematically denying them agency.
Declarations that “the people stand with Gaza” or “the people oppose intervention in Iran” must therefore be understood not as reflections of public sentiment but as instruments of political control. The tragedy is not only that the people are silenced, but that they are told they are speaking.
Bibliography
Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639.
Cammett, Melani, and Lauren M. MacLean, eds. 2014. The Politics of Non-State Social Welfare. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Carothers, Thomas, and Saskia Brechenmacher. 2014. Closing Space: Democracy and Human Rights Support Under Fire. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Davenport, Christian. 2007. State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
El‑Ghobashy, Mona. 2021. Bread and Freedom: Egypt’s Revolutionary Situation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Esen, Berk, and Sebnem Gumuscu. 2016. “Rising Competitive Authoritarianism in Turkey.” Third World Quarterly 37 (9): 1581–1606.
Greene, Samuel A., and Graeme Robertson. 2019. Putin v. the People: The Perilous Politics of a Divided Russia. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Guriev, Sergei, and Daniel Treisman. 2019. Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Havel, Václav. 1978. “The Power of the Powerless.” In Open Letters: Selected Writings, 1965–1990. New York: Vintage.
Keshavarzian, Arang. 2007. Bazaar and State in Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuran, Timur. 1995. Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan A. Way. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, Marc. 2016. The New Arab Wars: Uprisings and Anarchy in the Middle East. New York: PublicAffairs.
Stover, Eric. 2020. “Gaslighting and the Politics of Reality Construction.” Journal of Human Rights Practice 12 (2): 245–260.
Wedeen, Lisa. 1999. Ambiguities of Domination: Politics, Rhetoric, and Symbols in Contemporary Syria. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Written with the help of AI.
Writing by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal 