Donald Trump is only the latest of the species. He is of course quite a specimen, and he dramatises the type better than anyone, in his vulgarity and flagrancy. But think of Berlusconi in Italy, who makes Trump look tame! Or Orbán in Hungary, who is about as nasty a right-wing autocrat as you can get.

Then there are the masters of elected autocrats, Erdogan of Turkey and Putin of Russia, who have more or less strangled all open political space. Both are comical-sinister personalities – Putin with his bare-chested photographs, his judo, and his interminable televised “open house” sessions with the Russian public; and Erdogan objecting to memes on the internet that compare him to Lord of the Rings character Gollum. Xi Jinping is also autocratic. He is not popularly elected, but can anyone doubt that he would be elected with a big majority if he chose to run in China?

India has its share of popular autocrats. They are called Chief Ministers. They are quite a hilarious, scary lot as well. They brook little or no opposition, stifle the regional press, and lead by following – by giving into and giving expression to local demands no matter how outrageous or irrational. Prime Minister Narendra Modi too is widely regarded, even admired as being autocratic, as someone who rules through his technocrats and brooks no opposition at least within his own Cabinet and party. Indira Gandhi was also admired (and reviled) as a popular autocrat.

The rise of autocrats can be traced to three trends. The first is the politics of resentment. Autocrats are lifted or propelled to power by the anger and self-hatred of a majority community. Usually, anger and self-hatred are two sides of the same coin. There is anger at what the majority perceives to be its ‘marginalisation’ by the government or by existing programmes and policies; and self-hatred at the majority’s having allowed this or being unable to do much about it. It does not matter that the majority in fact dominates politically, socially and economically. The perception is that minorities including the worst minority of all – liberal secularists – work against the majority.

The second reason autocrats are rising to power is the popular view that one’s country is either losing ground to other countries or that it is being disrespected internationally. This is especially pronounced among big powers. Big powers have a sense of entitlement and are extremely sensitive to relative decline or to denial of something they regard as being rightfully theirs (territory and status, for instance). This is the case now in the US, China, India, Russia and Turkey. The US wants respect, China wants respect and (its) territory, India wants respect and (its) territory, Russia is desperate to be counted amongst the big players, and Turkey wants to be part of Europe on its own terms and not the EU’s terms.

The third reason for the rise of autocrats is the yearning for simplification in complex times. In a mass society where there are many different views of what to do, how to do, and when to do, ordinary people tire of the cacophony of voices. They are assailed by pluralism at every turn. They become impatient with talk and debate; they want action. They have contempt for deliberation and dialogue and are cynical about any delay. They long for a (mythical) golden age when leaders led rather than compromised and wise elders – usually men – laid down some timeless principles of personal and public conduct.

The media plays a vital role in the rise of autocrats. This is ironic, because we think of the media as being the ‘fourth estate’, as a check-and-balance against autocracy. Historically, though, the media is a powerful instrument in spreading a sense of disaffection, victimhood and impatience with pluralism. The media may not originate the anger and resentment and longing for brash leadership, but at some point it plays along. It too leads by following.

A world led by popular autocrats would not be a happy place, in the end. It could be a very dangerous place.

Caveat emptor.