Supporters or Followers: The Fragile Line Between Democracy and Obedience
“A dictator doesn’t need supporters — he just needs followers.” David Baldacci, Walk the Wire
When I first heard that line, it stopped me in my tracks. It captures something fundamental about power — not just in political systems, but in human behavior. Supporters are thinkers. They weigh choices, debate, and often dissent. Followers simply obey. And the more followers a leader can create, the less that leader needs to persuade.
At first glance, Baldacci’s line seems like a clever piece of dialogue from a crime novel. But in an age where populism, disinformation, and polarization define politics, it’s also a warning. Dictators — or those who would become them — do not rise on the shoulders of informed citizens. They rise on the silence of the obedient.
Supporters Think; Followers Obey
Supporters engage with ideas. They may not agree on every issue, but they share a sense of agency — a belief that their participation matters. Followers, on the other hand, surrender that agency. They equate loyalty with virtue and dissent with betrayal.
That distinction isn’t merely semantic. It determines whether societies remain democratic, drift toward authoritarianism, or collapse altogether. When citizens stop thinking critically and start following reflexively, leaders no longer need to justify their actions. They only need to maintain the illusion of strength.
Modern Echoes of the Follower State
The “follower” phenomenon isn’t confined to history books or far-off regimes. It’s visible in today’s headlines.
Turkey: Loyalty Over Liberty
In May 2025, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan oversaw the jailing of opposition leader Ekrem İmamoğlu, Istanbul’s popular mayor, in what many observers saw as a politically motivated case. The move sparked nationwide protests, but Erdoğan’s core base remained unmoved. They didn’t have to be persuaded of the evidence — they simply followed the narrative that any opponent was a threat to national unity. It’s a textbook case of how authoritarian systems depend less on belief than on obedience.
Read more: Reuters report on Turkey’s democratic backsliding.
Hungary: The Illiberal Blueprint
In Hungary, Viktor Orbán calls his system an “illiberal democracy.” Over a decade in power, he has systematically weakened courts, media, and universities. What sustains him isn’t mass persuasion but mass followership — a populace rallied by identity, not ideology. “Christian Europe,” “Hungarian sovereignty,” “family values”: these are powerful emotional triggers that turn complex issues into simple loyalties. Orbán’s Hungary shows how the follower model can coexist with elections, yet erode the very freedoms elections are meant to protect.
United States: The Fragility of Civic Independence
Even established democracies aren’t immune. In the U.S., Donald Trump’s return to the presidency in 2025 reignited debates about democratic backsliding. Trump’s political survival has never depended on majority approval; it depends on the loyalty of his base. When truth becomes secondary to team identity, and political institutions are seen as obstacles rather than safeguards, democracy’s immune system weakens. The danger isn’t one man’s ambition — it’s a public conditioned to follow rather than question.
Read more: Washington Post analysis on autocrats citing Trump’s example.
A Global Pattern
From Manila to Moscow, from Budapest to Washington, the same pattern repeats: the cult of followership. The tools differ — media control, populist messaging, or algorithmic echo chambers — but the formula is ancient. Turn citizens into spectators, replace dialogue with slogans, and power becomes self-sustaining.
The Antidote: Active Citizenship
The only reliable defense against authoritarian drift isn’t ideology — it’s participation. When people engage critically, ask questions, and refuse to be swept into binary loyalties, they weaken the grip of would-be dictators. Supporters — in the truest sense — are democracy’s antibodies.
Final Thought
Baldacci’s line reminds us that the danger isn’t simply the dictator. It’s the crowd that follows because it’s easier than thinking, safer than dissenting, or more gratifying than compromising. In that sense, democracy doesn’t die from opposition — it dies from obedience.