Around the world, the same question keeps resurfacing:
Why do so many of our leaders act in ways that provoke frustration, deepen division, and create instability, when they could use the same energy and resources to genuinely improve life for everyone?
It’s tempting to dismiss this as incompetence or malice. But history and current events suggest something more structural — a blend of leadership traits that reward unhealthy behaviour, and a voting public that, in democracies, often fails to recognise that the choice they’re being offered is more illusion than reality.
The Leadership Factor – Traits That Keep Reappearing
While the old psychiatric term “megalomania” has faded from clinical use, its associated traits — grandiosity, entitlement, obsessive control — still describe behaviours we can clearly observe in many leaders.
These traits are not only present, but often rewarded by political systems.
Table 1 – Megalomania Traits in Leadership
| Trait | Definition | Political Manifestation | Historical Example | Modern Observation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grandiose Self-Importance | Exaggerated belief in one’s significance or destiny. | Positioning oneself as the only person able to “save” the nation. | Napoleon Bonaparte’s self-styling as Europe’s stabiliser. | “Only I can fix it” rhetoric in US, UK, and elsewhere. |
| Need for Excessive Admiration | Requires constant praise or validation. | Choreographed events, carefully curated media coverage. | Mussolini’s balcony speeches to adoring crowds. | Social media posts with staged “supportive” audiences. |
| Sense of Entitlement | Belief that rules don’t apply to them. | Bypassing laws, using public funds for personal ends. | Louis XIV: “I am the state.” | Lavish living while imposing austerity on citizens. |
| Exploitation of Others | Using people as tools for personal gain. | Rewarding loyalty over competence. | Stalin’s inner circle appointments. | Unqualified allies in key national positions. |
| Lack of Empathy | Indifference to others’ suffering. | Policies with foreseeable harm and no mitigation. | British policy during the Irish Famine. | Reforms that hit the poorest hardest, dismissed as “necessary.” |
| Obsessive Control | Desire to dominate all aspects of governance. | Suppressing dissent, centralising decision-making. | Hitler’s control over German cultural and political life. | Tight regulation of online speech, centralising data under “security” laws. |
Modern Examples – Observed Behaviours in Public Record
This is not about diagnosing individuals, but about mapping observable actions to the traits above.
- Vladimir Putin – Constitutional changes to extend his rule; centralisation of power (Obsessive Control, Sense of Entitlement).
- Donald Trump – “Only I can fix it” framing; rallies as key political tool (Grandiose Self-Importance, Need for Excessive Admiration).
- Xi Jinping – Removal of term limits; consolidation of party and state leadership roles (Obsessive Control, Exploitation of Others).
- Boris Johnson – Proroguing Parliament during Brexit; repeated rule-breaking scandals (Sense of Entitlement, Lack of Empathy).
- Narendra Modi – Cult of personality in political branding; targeting dissenting journalists (Need for Excessive Admiration, Obsessive Control).
- Emmanuel Macron – Governing by executive order despite mass protests (Obsessive Control, Indifference to Public Anger).
- Keir Starmer – Centralising candidate selection; removing dissenting MPs; tightly controlling party conference debates (Obsessive Control, Sense of Entitlement).
These patterns show that the traits we once associated with historic autocrats now appear, in varying degrees, across democracies and authoritarian states alike.
The Voter Factor – Why the Public Shares Responsibility
In democracies, the electorate plays a role in who ends up in power — but that role is shaped and limited by the system.
- The Illusion of Choice – Candidates are often drawn from the same political class with similar vested interests, narrowing genuine alternatives.
- Media Influence – A small number of owners and editorial lines frame which leaders are “electable.”
- Short-Term Thinking – Voters often focus on immediate issues or fears rather than long-term governance patterns.
- Low Engagement Between Elections – Politicians face little sustained pressure between votes.
- Systemic Barriers – Electoral systems like first-past-the-post, gerrymandering, and party gatekeeping reduce the impact of votes.
The Core Conclusion
The problems at the heart of global governance today stem from two interlocking failures:
- Leaders whose observable behaviours often align with unhealthy personality traits, rewarded by the structures they operate in.
- Electorates, where applicable, who fail to demand more than the narrow, pre-filtered “choices” they are offered.
The Way Forward – Harder Questions, Better Choices
In functioning democracies, the public can reduce the influence of megalomaniac traits in leadership by:
- Treating voting as a high-stakes decision, not a reflex or a least-worst calculation.
- Demanding specifics over slogans; challenging candidates with substantive questions.
- Tracking who decides which candidates reach the ballot, and pushing for transparent selection processes.
- Reducing focus on personality politics and prioritising policy track records.
Without these changes, the cycle will continue — leaders with destructive traits will thrive, and voters will keep wondering why nothing ever changes.
Hope isn’t what they promise you. It’s how you carry on when they don’t deliver. — Dave Carrera
