Pseudo-oppositionist spoilers in autocracies

[Spathi]

I have thought much on the question of why, after revolutions, often a new power becomes even worse than previous one. For example, in Russia after 1917 old authoritarian power was replaced by totalitarian one. Here is the answer: each authoritarian power suppresses the opposition, which pose a threat ideologically, more intensively, than rabid (extreme) opposition, despite the second one often poses even bigger threat to the representatives of current power. The first opposition is a seculiar democratic opposition, while the second opposition is something with communist/fascist/islamist etc. ideology.
This is very clearly seen on the examples of such countries like Syria or Russia. When protest against Assad started in Syria, firstly this was seculiar pro-democratic opposition. But Assad fully destroyed this opposition, giving more chances to islamic fundamentalist forces (al-Sharaa) - and suddenly in 2024 al-Sharaa came to power. I think, it can be correct to say that al-Sharaa was to some extent an Assad's spoiler.
Similar things are happening in Russia: Putin unofficially declares that if he loses the power - instead of him cruel imperialists will take it. For supporting this statement, Putin always supported anti-democratic imperialists in power like Ramzan Kadyrov or Evgeniy Prigozhin.
I think, Alexey Navalny was also to some extent one more of Putins's spoilers: as far as I know, firstly he collaborated with the presidency administration in Kremlin, but then he went out of control and Putin decided to finish him. Below I want to show you a picture from one Russuan website, relating Navalny; even those who don't know Russian, probably will understand the meaning of this picture:

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Google Lens provides a good explanation of the above, including translations.

 

[Patxitxi]

I have thought much on the question of why, after revolutions, often a new power becomes even worse than previous one. For example, in Russia after 1917 old authoritarian power was replaced by totalitarian one. Here is the answer: each authoritarian power suppresses the opposition, which pose a threat ideologically, more intensively, than rabid (extreme) opposition, despite the second one often poses even bigger threat to the representatives of current power. The first opposition is a seculiar democratic opposition, while the second opposition is something with communist/fascist/islamist etc. ideology.
This is very clearly seen on the examples of such countries like Syria or Russia. When protest against Assad started in Syria, firstly this was seculiar pro-democratic opposition. But Assad fully destroyed this opposition, giving more chances to islamic fundamentalist forces (al-Sharaa) - and suddenly in 2024 al-Sharaa came to power. I think, it can be correct to say that al-Sharaa was to some extent an Assad's spoiler.
Similar things are happening in Russia: Putin unofficially declares that if he loses the power - instead of him cruel imperialists will take it. For supporting this statement, Putin always supported anti-democratic imperialists in power like Ramzan Kadyrov or Evgeniy Prigozhin.
I think, Alexey Navalny was also to some extent one more of Putins's spoilers: as far as I know, firstly he collaborated with the presidency administration in Kremlin, but then he went out of control and Putin decided to finish him. Below I want to show you a picture from one Russuan website, relating Navalny; even those who don't know Russian, probably will understand the meaning of this picture:

View attachment 1335

I can see perfectly your point but I do not agree with the "often" in "after revolutions, often a new power becomes even worse".

Most likely you know all of the following but you are not alone in this forum, I lived in Russia a few years and "the foreigner" (me) asked and talked a lot about the Communist era, it's fall and the consequences with my Russian colleagues.

When the Soviet Union fell only the communist networked individuals had the power to take over power, the communist politicians, corrupt to the marrow, formed the russian mafia, the infamous "Krishas".

All estate owned companies were divided among the employees but the mafia started knocking on doors buying the individual shares for peanuts by menacing its owners and their families if these were not "transferred" to them.

Thus currently the majority of top fortunes are tied to natural resources, including steel, oil, and nickel with record number of 155 Russian billionaires appeared on the 2026 Forbes list.

My Russian friends argued that no one really loved Putin but that only he had the strong hand needed to keep these billionaires in check. As far as I know it's the only case of a head of the Secret Service becoming president of any country.

Vladimir Putin assumed power in 2000, and he sought to break the immense political power that "oligarchs" had amassed during the 1990s

Putin set a new, hard line: he would permit billionaires to keep their fortunes, provided they stayed out of politics and remained loyal to the state. Those who failed to adhere to this "grand bargain" were targeted through media control, prosecutions, or exile.

Remember Gusinsky, Berezovsky or Khodorkovsky from Yukos?

Thus this elite class become "rich and voiceless," replaced by a "new" group of businessmen who were either subservient to or chosen by the Kremlin.

Paka Spathy.

PS: Na xuy?! Wow