Armenian political analyst says authoritarian leaders invoke 'the people' to legitimize power

Armenian political analyst Stepan Danielyan argues that authoritarian leaders routinely invoke "the people" to legitimize their rule, evade personal responsibility and marginalize political opponents.

In a social media post on Saturday, Danielyan says the practice reflects a historical evolution in how rulers justify their authority.

"In the past, power came from God, so tyrants spoke in God's name," he writes. "Today, power comes from the people—at least de jure—so their favorite phrase is: 'I am carrying out the will of the people.'"

Danielyan argues that this rhetoric is used to portray controversial government actions as expressions of popular demand rather than political decisions made by those in power. Among the examples he cites are claims that "the people want to surround and beat judges," "the people want to change the composition of the Constitutional Court," or that "the people had grown tired of Artsakh" and therefore accepted military defeat and a new political reality.

According to Danielyan, speaking in the name of the public also serves another purpose: insulating leaders from accountability.

"When an authoritarian ruler makes destructive decisions, speaking 'on behalf of the people' helps shift the blame onto others," he writes.

Danielyan further contends that the strategy creates a sharp divide between supporters and critics by allowing leaders to equate themselves with the nation.

"The formula is simple," he writes. "'I am the people. If you are against me, then you are against your own people'—making opponents easy to portray as traitors, a fifth column or enemies of the people."

He also argues that authoritarian leaders seek to erase the distinction between themselves, the state and society, promoting the concept of "the leader as the embodiment of the nation."

At the same time, Danielyan says, state-controlled media and coordinated online networks help create "the illusion of unanimous consent," making dissenters believe they are isolated and powerless.

"When everyone appears to be in agreement, people begin to think that speaking out is both dangerous and pointless," he writes. "That paralyzes the will to resist."

Danielyan concludes that invoking "the people" is not a sign of democratic legitimacy but "a fundamental tool of political survival."

"It allows an authoritarian leader to transform coercion into 'obedience' and unchecked power into 'the highest form of democracy,'" he says.