Why do people change when they come to power?

People change when they ascend to power. In political speeches, in their economic policies or social statements, those in power often speak at length about morality. But in practice, their behaviour does not match that rhetoric.

In this context, three renowned psychologists, Joris Lammers, Diederik A Stapel and Adam D Galinsky, conducted a study in 2010. The study, titled “Power Increases Hypocrisy: Moralizing in Reasoning, Immorality in Behavior,” was published in ''Psychological Science,'' a journal of the American Psychological Association (APA). It is regarded as one of the most influential and prestigious journals in psychology. The main objective of the research was to understand whether power pushes people towards moral double standards or hypocrisy.

The researchers conducted five experiments. They found that compared with the powerless, the powerful condemned other people's cheating more, but also cheated more themselves. The powerful were stricter in judging other people's moral transgressions than in judging their own transgressions. This behaviour of the powerful is referred to as moral double standards or hypocrisy, meaning a pattern where an individual imposes strict moral standards on others but does not follow them personally.

In explaining this, the researchers noted that power creates a sense of authority within individuals. They come to believe that it is their responsibility to control or judge the behaviour of others. Power also makes people more focused on personal gain, rewards and advantages. Social criticism or moral pressure then becomes comparatively less important to them. As a result, they easily relax moral standards when it comes to themselves.

Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson imposed strict lockdowns on citizens during COVID. Later, it was revealed that he had held parties at 10 Downing Street with his staff during the lockdown. This has now become known as the “Partygate scandal.”

Former US President Joe Biden had promised during his campaign that he would never intervene in his son Hunter Biden’s legal cases. But after coming to power, he granted his son unconditional pardon.

These are two examples from advanced countries which are widely believed to place morality on a high pedestal. If we start giving examples from Bangladesh, this article would never end. In Bangladesh, written evidence of moral hypocrisy can be found in political parties’ election manifestos. Zero tolerance for corruption, establishment of the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and press freedom are all highly publicised written commitments. After coming to power, these promises were most frequently breached. The stance of Awami League regarding the caretaker government is a major example of moral hypocrisy.

We can also look at recent times. People participated in mass uprisings over demands such as eliminating inequality, protecting the right to free expression, press freedom, preventing corruption and establishing good governance. Yet today, in many cases, the opposite picture is emerging. Many of those who once believed in these principles are now acting contrary to them.

There's a poem by Subhas Mukhapadhaya which, in translation, goes something like this: ''My friends who said they'll change the world/Were so impatient/Now they have simply changed themselves instead.'' After the July uprising, many people have probably had the experience of seeing friends like this. Those who were once vocal against granting TV channel licences to party leaders and activists for political reasons are now complaining that they were not being allowed this work.

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once famously said, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” The fact that those in power think of themselves in this way is the biggest problem of power.

Wells Fargo is one of the largest banks in the United States. The bank was once involved in a massive fraud. Between 2011 and 2016, Wells Fargo opened nearly 2 million fake bank accounts and credit cards in customers’ names without their knowledge. The customers had no idea these extra accounts existed, yet they were still paying the fees or charges on them.

At that time, the bank’s CEO was John Stumpf. In September 2016, he was called to testify before Congress. His astonishing behaviour there drew widespread attention because he showed neither empathy for the victims nor remorse for his actions. He remained calm throughout. According to researchers, this was not an act by John Stumpf. Rather, prolonged occupancy at the very top of power had caused the part of his brain responsible for understanding others’ feelings, called the “mirroring process”, to stop functioning.

A major criticism against Awami League leaders and activists is that they show no remorse for the killing of over a thousand people during the student-public movements. Now it becomes clear why there is none.

The problem actually lies within the brains of those in power. In 2013, three neuroscientists led by Sukhvinder S Obhi conducted a study titled “Power Changes How the Brain Responds to Others.” The main objective of the research was to examine how power operates at the brain level. The study tested the effect of power on a process called motor resonance. Motor resonance is a phenomenon in which, when we see someone performing an action, the corresponding parts of our brain become active, and we tend to perform the same action ourselves in a similar way. It was observed that this process does not function in people in power.

According to the study, high-power participants demonstrated lower levels of resonance than low-power participants, suggesting reduced mirroring of other people in those with power.

Professor Dacher Keltner, a psychologist at the University of California, has shown through 20 years of research that when people come to power, certain changes occur in their brains that make them less empathetic toward others. The empathy, altruism, and social skills that people use to win others over before attaining power are precisely the qualities they lose once they are in power. His 2016 book on this subject is titled ''The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence''.

In fact, the change in people’s behavior or forgetting promises after coming to power is a perennial political crisis worldwide. The most famous research on the behaviour of those in power was conducted by former British Foreign Secretary Lord David Owen.

He called it the “Hubris Syndrome.” The word ''hubris'' comes from ancient Greek. It means excessive pride, a form of arrogance that crosses limits, and blind overconfidence about one’s power and position.

David Owen showed that people who remain at the top of power for a long time develop a specific psychological change called “hubris syndrome.” This is not an ordinary mental illness; rather, it is a positional illness. As a result, leaders become extremely overconfident and begin to disregard others. He conducted this research by analyzing the lives, decisions, and behaviour of 18 US presidents and 26 British prime ministers over a century. Later, in the context of the Iraq War, he wrote a separate book focusing on George Bush and Tony Blair, titled ''The Hubris Syndrome: Bush, Blair and the Intoxication of Power''.

David Owen has identified 14 signs of hubris syndrome. These include: seeing one’s own power as intertwined with personal glory and history; believing one’s decisions are always correct; perceiving criticism and dissent as hostility; overvaluing one’s own beliefs; letting confidence gradually turn into excessive arrogance; thinking of oneself as a special person; considering power above morality; believing rules and laws do not apply to oneself; ignoring experts’ advice; showing abnormal enthusiasm for risky decisions; claiming personal credit for successes; becoming more authoritarian out of fear of losing power; becoming isolated from ordinary people; and being unable to imagine one’s identity without power.
Now, readers can reflect and see the parallels themselves.

The greatest enemy of democracy is a leader with unchecked confidence. As a remedy, David Owen has said that democratic controls are the real cure. To achieve this, one must set limits on terms of power, create strong parliaments, cabinets, and institutions, encourage criticism, and keep “yes-men” away from decision-making.

The three psychologists mentioned earlier wrote that moral hypocrisy is actually embedded in the structure of power itself. The structure of power is designed in such a way that moral hypocrisy becomes inevitable, which in turn increases the misuse of power.

British historian and thinker Lord Acton wrote a historic letter to his friend Mandel Creighton in 1887. In it, he made a statement on the abuse of power that remains one of the most quoted lines in global politics to this day: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence without authority; and when they place themselves in positions of governance, corruption is all but certain.”

The 2003 book ''The Logic of Political Survival'' is considered one of the most important works in modern political economy. Its four authors, renowned political scientists, analysed politics through the lens of mathematical economics. They argue that building a good government requires not just honest leaders, but institutions where survival depends on working for the welfare of the people, leaving no alternative.

Research and writing on these issues are abundant. The central lesson is that the solution lies in changing the structure or system. Simply placing honest people in power does not automatically bring change. Strong, effective institutions are necessary. Without building strong institutions, proper structures, and mechanisms for accountability, whoever comes to power will eventually change, becoming arrogant, paving the way for the next autocrat. And there is no shortage of “yes-men” to support them in everything they do.

* Shawkat Hossain is Head of Online, Prothom Alo
* The opinions expressed here are the author’s own.