What is The Difference Between Power, and Insanity?

In every culture throughout history people have always railed against oppression, and rallied for change. The humans who are most vulnerable to the whims of cruel dictators consistently look to the one who will be their savior, the one who will fight for them, and make their world a safer place. They put the entirety of their dreams and hopes into the valiant efforts of the revolutionary who steps up and promises them the lives they deserve.

The revolutionary, I'm certain, is full of noble intentions. The need for political and social metamorphosis is so dire that action comes swiftly, and with harsh judgment. Violence may erupt, but with the blessings of the people, as they are under the impression that their savior fights for them. Grand coups are met with thunderous cheers and mass approval, everyone ready for a glorious new country, and all the opportunities one can handle.

When the inauguration of the new leadership has ended, and all of the party goods swept away, and everyone goes back to life as usual, the true metamorphosis begins. It seems that throughout history whenever change has come swiftly, and even violently the new leadership eventually mirrors the old. History also tells us that some new leadership turned out to be much worse than what they had before. It calls into to question the motivation of leadership, and the transformative power of leadership.

Does power corrupt?

Some say absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a certain aspect to gaining mass control over a situation, or imagine this, a country that I'm confident has the power to change a person's moral capabilities. The ethics once touted as the force to create change and a new world will slowly fade away with the conveniences of luxury and authority.

There is also, of course, paranoia. Paranoia of losing the command so forcefully taken. If a revolution can spark a coup, then the new leader will lose all that they fought so hard for. The precious nature of power and authority become overwhelmingly apparent to the once free, yet angrily passionate revolutionary.

One would think that this threat would encourage the new leader to do a very good job - so as to thwart the need for popular revolution. If the newly found president or king, or whathaveyou applied the policies as promised, and created sustainable wealth that brought everyone out of abject poverty, the people would rejoice, and worship him.

Is this worship healthy?

There is an aspect to leadership that brings to light the annoyingly persistent question. Which came first, the power or the megalomania? As it seems that throughout the majority of history those who seek power, absolute power - no matter how good the initial intentions - come to rule with a brutal iron fist.

Is there a connection between the type of personality that would seek out total power, rather than leadership, that allows for insanity to sink in once that power is attained? It isn't all life circumstances that dictate these behaviors. Undoubtedly, growing up in oppression would help fuel passion, anger, or even hatred. Growing up in unhealthy homes showered in hatred and baptized with abuse would create the psychological conditions so easily ripened into brutality. However, not all dictators were raised in these circumstances, so it can't be the whole of the answer. There is the possibility that the type of person who would fight to gain total control may already have the capacity for mental instability.

At which point, the attainment of power works the magic that is corruption. When you see the masses celebrate a new leader for his promises, his character, his relationship with the people and his rise to power, then watch them be crushed months, or sometimes years after the fact, it is astounding. It is also evident that a rise to power contains some sort of intoxication that eventually brings on their demise.

Is history consistently doomed to repeat itself? Is the problem at hand one that intimates that humans don't want change nearly as badly as they pretend to? Is it a deeper social psychological problem of desiring the father figure as leadership, no matter how abusive he was?

Are we so accustomed to abuse, oppression, and brutality that we crave it, subconsciously? Thus continuously supporting those who will only turn on us? Or do we, as humans really do desire change, and want it so badly we are willing to swallow whatever bittersweet pill we are given, only to be poisoned by it time and time again?

Perhaps there is a combination of all of these factors. That not withstanding I do believe firmly however, that both those who continuously seek ultimate power, and that power itself are a corrupting, psychological two punch combo that has wrought brutality on this world for centuries.

And yet we, the people, the world powers and so called righteous sit and do nothing to stop the brutal cycle.

Perhaps some day greed will be labeled as a psychological disorder, making all the world's leaders madmen in the end.