We live in a time when truth is losing ground every day. We are served a vague concept of "post-truth", which is both meaningless and perfidious, because it implies that truth was once "before", and is now "overtaken", as some unnecessary ballast of the past. But truth cannot have epochs like fashion - something is true or not, regardless of whether people accept it.
The ideologically charged concept of post-truth serves the ruling elites wonderfully, because it normalizes and makes lying socially acceptable. Post-truth is not a scientifically neutral description of the state of affairs, but a symptom of the pathology of our time.
When political lying becomes normative, an important question arises: is chronic lying by politicians solely a matter of immorality, or might it indicate a deeper psychological disorder? What helps us to distinguish the strategic, calculated lying of an immoral actor from the pathological pattern of lying characteristic of personality disorders?
There are some criteria for this distinction, but in reality, systematic self-serving lying changes the personality and can become pathological. As psychologist William Glasser, the founder of reality therapy, claims: "People do not behave irresponsibly because they are sick, but they become sick because they behave irresponsibly."
An immoral politician lies consciously and purposefully. He uses cold calculation. He knows he is lying, but he judges that it will pay off. Lying is a means, not an essential need. He may lie to win or survive in the political arena, to gain support, to manipulate the public, to undermine opponents, to avoid responsibility, to cover up failures, to glorify achievements, etc.
In this case, it is immoral, realpolitik cynicism, not psychopathology. For example, when a leader in power explains every decline in standards, inflation, failures, or loss of international reputation with an “external conspiracy” or “envious opponents,” it is a functional lie, i.e. a form of political propaganda. He knows that what he is saying is not true, but he also knows that it benefits him. Such an actor could, at least theoretically, stop lying if circumstances change, e.g. if the truth becomes politically profitable. He is not in the power of lies.
It is different when it comes to a pathological pattern in which lying has become an identity. In politicians with personality disorders, lying is not just a tool, but a manifestation of a deep character structure. Unrestrained lying is characteristic of antisocial, narcissistic and histrionic personality disorders.
Key characteristics of antisocial personality disorder include: pathological lying, lack of empathy (as well as its skillful acting), conscience, instrumental behavior towards people (using people as means for one's own interests), superficial charm, manipulation, and impulsivity. In the book "The Sociopath Lurks Around the Corner," Dr. Martha Stout writes: "A sociopath does not have to carry a gun.
It is enough that he does not feel a shred of remorse while he lies and takes advantage of you, over and over again.” For example, a politician who retroactively or ad hoc changes laws to protect his associates and himself, destroys independent institutions, oppresses dissenters, while at the same time convincing the public that “there has never been more democracy” or “that life is better than ever” (while the country is experiencing an exodus of its population), demonstrates patterns of antisocial manipulation and a complete break with moral responsibility.
The characteristics of narcissistic disorder are grandiosity, the need for constant admiration, fantasies of historical greatness and irreplaceability (messianic complex), intolerance of criticism, often accompanied by vindictive behavior. "A narcissistic leader does not love himself as a person, but his image in the mirror of power. When that mirror breaks, he becomes dangerous - because the world no longer reflects his greatness." (E. Fromm, "Anatomy of Human Destruction"). For example, when a politician claims to be "the greatest statesman in history", that he will enter the "textbooks", that all who oppose him are scoundrels and traitors, a false elite, etc., we have a profile of narcissistic ego inflation. If he does not tolerate even the slightest form of doubt, but reacts repressively, we are faced with a pathology of power.
In histrionic disorder, the lie serves to attract attention and provoke emotional reactions and approval from the audience through theatricalization. An example of a histrionic style would be a politician who artificially dramatizes in front of the cameras, sighs, feigns suffering, holds his hand over his heart and claims in a deep voice something like: “I would die for my people! I never said or did what they accuse me of! These are fabrications by the enemies of our proud people!” At the same time, there is evidence (recordings, statements, documents) that he has just said or done what he is now denying, but he stubbornly continues to play the emotional, pathetic role of victim and hero.
In practice, the most dangerous political actors often have a hybrid profile, i.e. a combination of the three disorders mentioned. They believe in their own greatness, use lies not only as a tool, but almost as if they are used by them, because they are the building blocks of their identity; they feel no empathy for anyone except their own ego. They believe that they are above the law, criticism and history, because they are special and privileged, and they have the right to transfer their privilege to selected followers - and to take it away from them when they feel like it.
Understanding the difference between an immoral and a pathological leader is important because it has concrete consequences for society. The former can be stopped by public pressure and legitimate means of opposition. The latter ignores or violates all boundaries, because he sees criticism and opposition as a threat to his existence, rather than a legitimate, albeit unpleasant, corrective.
When personality disorder combines with political power, we get a leader who does not lead the state, but rather a projection of his psyche.
The author is a psychotherapist
Bonus video:
