More Related News
Sports News
International News
News
COMMENTARY
There is an old paradox about power that history has never quite managed to bury: the man who commands the greatest army is often the man who fears the greatest number of people. Long before democracy was born, before constitutions became instruments for restraining governments, before citizens learned to speak of sovereignty as belonging to the people, kings and queens ruled through the sword. The crown was not merely a symbol of dignity. It was an institution of power, and power in the ancient world was frequently measured by the number of warriors who could be summoned in its defence. A king who conquered territories needed soldiers. A king who accumulated enemies needed more soldiers. And a king who ruled his own subjects through fear eventually discovered that he needed soldiers even to sleep.
That is where the ancient story of political security begins. It is also where the modern story of authoritarianism has, in some respects, come full circle. The ancient monarch did not have the luxury of assuming that political disagreement could be settled at the ballot box. There was no peaceful transfer of power by universal suffrage, no independent electoral commission, no constitutional court capable of declaring a king's decree unconstitutional, and no opposition party waiting patiently for the next election. There was the palace, there was the army, there was the sword, and there was the throne. Kings therefore understood something that modern politicians sometimes forget: political power without legitimacy requires physical protection.
The ancient world offers us some of the clearest illustrations of this relationship between power, conquest, and security. The Assyrian Empire, for example, constructed one of the most formidable military machines of the ancient Near East. Its kings commanded armies of infantry, cavalry, and chariots and maintained elite forces around the monarch. Assyrian imperial power was sustained through military conquest, tribute, deportation, and intimidation. The king was simultaneously sovereign, commander, and potential target. His empire was maintained by the sword, and the sword had to remain close to him.
There is something deeply revealing about ancient kingship. A monarch might command armies capable of crossing mountains and destroying fortified cities, yet still be terrified of the person standing behind his throne. Sennacherib of Assyria provides one of history's most striking examples. He commanded one of the ancient Near East's greatest imperial machines, yet in 681 BCE he was assassinated by members of his own family and their supporters. The lesson is almost Shakespearean: the greatest danger to the man at the top may not come from the battlefield; it may come from the palace.
The same contradiction appears repeatedly throughout history. The more personal power became, the more the ruler had to worry about those who might take that power away. Thus emerged the palace guard, the royal guard, and the special military formations whose primary responsibility was to protect the person of the monarch. In ancient Israel, for example, royal guards were associated with the protection of King David. Ancient Egypt, Babylon, and other kingdoms similarly developed specialised formations around their rulers. The Hittites developed an elaborate royal guard structure in which senior officers could exercise considerable influence at court. The king's security was therefore not merely about protecting a human being. It was about protecting the political system embodied in that human being.
And that is where the problem begins.
Perhaps no civilisation demonstrates the danger of personal security forces more dramatically than imperial Rome. The Roman emperors developed the Praetorian Guard, originally conceived as an elite force associated with the emperor's protection. With time, however, the Guard accumulated such political influence that it could affect the succession to the imperial throne. The institution created to protect the emperor could become powerful enough to determine who would become emperor. The protector became a political actor. The shield became a sword. The sword eventually acquired the power to decide who would wear the crown.
History could hardly have provided a more powerful warning. When a ruler's personal security becomes more powerful than the institutions that protect the people, the protector can itself become a threat to constitutional order. The problem, therefore, is not simply the number of guards surrounding a ruler. The deeper question is who controls them, whom they serve, what legal authority they possess, and what happens when the ruler's personal survival becomes indistinguishable from the survival of the state.
The rise of constitutional democracy represented one of the greatest revolutions in political history precisely because it sought to break this ancient relationship between political power and the sword. Democracy did not abolish armies. It did not abolish police forces. It did not abolish kings and queens. What it attempted to abolish was the idea that political authority belonged permanently to the individual who possessed the sword. The king became subject to law. The executive became accountable to institutions. The military became subordinate to constitutional authority. Political opponents ceased, at least in principle, to be enemies of the state simply because they wanted to replace the government.
The revolutionary democratic idea was remarkably simple: a leader should not need to fear his own people because the people possess the constitutional right to replace him. The ballot replaces the bullet. The election replaces the coup. The courtroom replaces the dungeon. The Constitution replaces the monarch's personal decree. Political succession becomes peaceful. That is one of democracy's greatest achievements.
Yet there is a strange psychological paradox at the heart of authoritarian power. The dictator wants absolute power because he believes absolute power makes him safe. But absolute power creates enemies. The dictator suppresses opposition. Suppressed opposition becomes resentment. Resentment becomes fear. Fear becomes conspiracy. Conspiracy becomes a security threat. The ruler responds by increasing security. Increased security distances him from the people. That distance increases suspicion. Suspicion produces more repression. Repression produces the need for still more security.
Power creates fear. Fear creates enemies. Enemies create the need for security. Security creates distance. Distance creates more fear. Thus the authoritarian ruler becomes trapped in a vicious circle from which there is often no easy escape.
This is why I have come to a provocative conclusion: sometimes the size of a ruler's security detail is not merely a measure of how dangerous the world is to him; it can also be a measure of how insecure his political world has become around him. The distinction matters. A genuinely popular democratic leader may require extensive protection. A threatened president may require armed security because terrorists, extremists, or political assassins genuinely seek his life. But there is something fundamentally different about a ruler who requires a militarised fortress because he has made his own population afraid of him.
The history of modern authoritarianism provides numerous examples of this political paradox. Mobutu Sese Seko's Zaire offers one of Africa's clearest historical illustrations. His regime relied heavily upon security forces loyal to the presidency, including the Special Presidential Division. The security apparatus did not simply exist to defend the territorial integrity of the country. It became an essential instrument of regime survival. Human-rights reporting from the period documented serious abuses by security forces. The state increasingly became a structure through which the political order surrounding one ruler was maintained.
The phenomenon was not unique to Africa. Saddam Hussein's Iraq developed overlapping security and intelligence institutions designed to prevent coups, assassinations, and internal challenges to his authority. Muammar Gaddafi's Libya developed elaborate systems of personal and regime protection. In such political systems, the purpose of security was not merely to protect the country from foreign invasion. It was also to protect the ruler from internal threats.
This is the defining characteristic of the fortress state. The ruler begins to see the population not primarily as citizens to be governed but as potential threats to be monitored. The citizen becomes a suspect. The opposition becomes an enemy. The journalist becomes an intelligence concern. The protester becomes a security threat. The election becomes a battlefield. Security forces become the final guarantor of political survival.
Few contemporary regimes demonstrate this logic more starkly than North Korea. Under the Kim dynasty, political control, surveillance, and coercion have become deeply embedded in the state. The country's political system has been described by international democracy and human-rights organisations as one of the world's most repressive authoritarian systems. Here the distinction between state security and regime security becomes almost invisible. The state protects the regime, the regime defines the state, and the ruler becomes the physical embodiment of national sovereignty. The security of one ruling family becomes intertwined with the security of an entire country.
Russia under Vladimir Putin provides another contemporary example, although the Russian case also demonstrates why the argument must be made carefully. The mere existence of presidential security cannot prove authoritarianism. A major world leader naturally faces serious threats. What matters is the combination of concentrated political power, weakened institutional checks, suppression of genuine political competition, militarisation, and the projection of force beyond national borders. Russia's war against Ukraine demonstrates how domestic political power can become intertwined with a broader geopolitical conception of security, in which the perceived security of the regime and the perceived security of the state become increasingly difficult to separate.
Belarus provides another example of the same political logic. Under Alexander Lukashenko, political power has become highly concentrated, elections have been repeatedly criticised as neither free nor fair, and security forces have been used against political opponents and protesters. Again, the lesson is not that every security officer represents repression. The lesson is structural: when political survival becomes heavily dependent upon security institutions, those institutions can gradually cease to be neutral protectors of the state and become protectors of the regime.
China presents a more complicated example because it is a vast, technologically sophisticated state with substantial institutional and economic capacity. Yet the concentration of political power, extensive surveillance, and restrictions on political dissent demonstrate how the instruments of modern security have evolved. The ancient king watched the road leading to his palace. The modern authoritarian state can monitor citizens through digital networks, surveillance systems, and sophisticated information technologies. The weapon has changed. The principle has not. Power still fears losing power.
Africa must not, however, be discussed merely as a continent of dictators. Such a conclusion would be historically inaccurate and intellectually unfair. Africa has democratic governments, constitutional monarchies, competitive political systems, and leaders who have genuinely accepted electoral defeat. Yet the continent also has a long history of personal rule, military coups, presidential guards, and security institutions that have at times become instruments of regime survival.
Uganda offers an instructive contemporary case, although it must equally be approached with intellectual caution. The precise size of presidential protection formations is not always publicly disclosed, and the existence of a substantial presidential security apparatus by itself cannot establish that a government is authoritarian. The more important questions are constitutional: who controls the security forces, under what law do they operate, to whom are they accountable, and are they protecting the constitutional order or becoming instruments of partisan political power?
Uganda's military role also demonstrates why military power cannot automatically be equated with authoritarianism. The Uganda People's Defence Forces have undertaken regional security operations, including deployments in Somalia and, at the request of the South Sudanese government, deployments associated with security concerns in South Sudan. Such activities may be justified in terms of national and regional security. The constitutional question, however, remains essential: who determines when military force is used, under what legal authority, subject to what oversight, and for whose ultimate benefit?
There is another dimension to this argument that deserves even greater attention. A leader who lives permanently in fear can eventually begin exporting his fears. The insecure ruler looks beyond his borders and sees conspiracies. He sees hostile governments. He sees foreign agents. He sees opposition movements as externally sponsored. He sees neighbouring states as potential threats. And sometimes he decides that the best defence is to attack first.
This is how domestic authoritarianism can become foreign aggression. The logic is seductive: if I destroy the enemy before he attacks me, I have created security. But the opposite often happens. The attack creates another enemy. The new enemy creates another threat. The threat requires more weapons. More weapons require more secrecy. More secrecy reduces accountability. Reduced accountability increases executive power. Executive power produces more fear. Thus the security spiral moves from the palace to the border.
Yet there is an important objection to the argument that must be acknowledged. What about the presidents of the United States, France, or other established democracies? What about prime ministers who travel in convoys, live in heavily protected residences, and are surrounded by armed security officers? Are they dictators? Certainly not.
Democratic leaders can be genuinely threatened. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy remains one of the most enduring reminders that even leaders of powerful democracies can be vulnerable. The assassination attempts and threats faced by contemporary political leaders likewise demonstrate that serious protection can be necessary even in democratic societies.
Therefore, security detail alone cannot be the test of dictatorship.
The real test is what the security apparatus is protecting. Is it protecting the constitutional office or the personal survival of the officeholder? Is it defending citizens or intimidating citizens? Is it accountable to Parliament, courts, and the Constitution, or only to the ruler? Is political opposition protected or treated as an enemy? Is the military subordinate to constitutional authority or to one individual? These questions separate democratic protection from authoritarian protection.
This distinction is perhaps best expressed through the difference between a president and an ancient king. A democratic president should be protected because the office belongs to the constitutional order. An authoritarian ruler is often protected because the ruler believes that the constitutional order cannot survive without him, or because he cannot survive without controlling the constitutional order.
The difference is enormous.
The democratic president effectively says, "Protect the presidency." The authoritarian ruler increasingly says, "Protect me." Eventually, those two statements become indistinguishable. And once that happens, the republic has begun to resemble the ancient palace.
Lord Acton's famous warning that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" remains relevant. But power does not merely corrupt the person who possesses it. Unchecked power also changes the person's relationship with danger. The ordinary citizen can lose an election and return home. The authoritarian ruler cannot easily imagine such a future. He may have accumulated enemies, secrets, wealth, political debts, and victims. He therefore begins to fear what will happen when he leaves office.
And so he remains in office.
Then he increases security.
Then he suppresses opposition.
Then he changes constitutions.
Then he weakens institutional checks.
Then he controls elections.
Then he influences the judiciary.
Then he turns Parliament into an instrument of executive power.
Eventually the country can become a fortress protecting one man.
Niccolò Machiavelli understood part of this paradox centuries ago. In The Prince, he recognised that a ruler could not govern successfully by relying simply upon goodness and affection. Yet Machiavelli also warned against becoming hated and despised. Fear may compel obedience temporarily, but hatred creates the conditions for conspiracy and instability.
The ruler who is feared may command silence.
The ruler who is hated must command security.
That distinction is profound.
A government can compel people to obey, but it cannot force people to love it. No army can manufacture genuine affection. No presidential convoy can create legitimacy. No intelligence agency can produce public trust. No armoured vehicle can substitute for constitutional justice.
Perhaps, therefore, we should look differently at presidential security. Instead of asking only, "How many guards protect the president?" we should ask, "Why does the president require so many guards?" We should ask who the perceived enemies are, why they are perceived as enemies, and whether they are foreign armies, terrorists, criminal organisations, political opponents, journalists, protesters, or simply citizens who want a different government.
The answers can reveal the political health of the state.
A democratic society should not be judged merely by whether its president has security. It should be judged by whether ordinary citizens can safely disagree with the president.
That is the real test.
There is something profoundly democratic about a leader who can walk through a marketplace and shake the hands of ordinary citizens. Not because he is careless, and not because threats do not exist, but because legitimacy creates a form of security that guns cannot manufacture. When people believe that their government belongs to them, the state requires fewer instruments of intimidation. When citizens believe that elections matter, they have less reason to overthrow governments violently. When courts are independent, people have less reason to take justice into their own hands. When political opponents can speak freely, disagreement does not have to become rebellion. When leaders know they can leave office safely, they have less reason to turn the state into a fortress.
Constitutionalism is therefore itself a form of political security. The rule of law is a security system. Democracy is a security system. Justice is a security system. Legitimacy is a security system. Sometimes these are more powerful than an army.
History has repeatedly shown us that the most dangerous man in the palace is not necessarily the man holding the sword. Sometimes it is the man who believes that without him the nation will collapse. That belief is the beginning of political messianism.
The ruler begins to say: "Only I can preserve stability." "Only I understand the nation." "Only I can defeat the enemies." "Only I can prevent chaos." "Only I can protect the people."
And once the ruler convinces himself that the country cannot survive without him, democracy has already suffered one of its most dangerous wounds.
Because democracy rests upon the opposite proposition: no individual is indispensable to the state.
Governments come and go. Presidents come and go. Prime ministers come and go. Kings die. Generals retire. Political parties lose elections. But the constitutional order must survive them all.
Perhaps this is the greatest distinction between ancient kingship and modern constitutional democracy. The ancient king believed that the state was his inheritance. The democratic leader is supposed to understand that the state is held in trust.
A king could say, "I am the state."
A constitutional democrat must understand that the state belongs to the people.
That is why the greatest warning sign is not simply the presence of soldiers around a leader. It is the moment when the security apparatus begins to move from protecting the state to protecting the political survival of the ruler. That is when the shield becomes the sword.
The Roman Praetorian Guard offers the ancient warning. Mobutu offers an African historical warning. Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi demonstrate the danger of personal security structures in authoritarian states. North Korea demonstrates the extreme form of dynastic regime security. Russia and Belarus demonstrate contemporary tensions between concentrated political power, security institutions, and political opposition. Democratic countries, meanwhile, demonstrate that extensive security can coexist with constitutional government when institutions remain stronger than individuals.
The lesson, therefore, is not that every leader with many guards is a dictator. That would be intellectually lazy and historically indefensible. The deeper lesson is that when a ruler's security apparatus grows alongside the suppression of political freedom, the militarisation of politics, the weakening of institutions, and the projection of power beyond borders, we should ask whether the state is protecting its citizens or whether the citizens are being governed in order to protect the ruler.
That is a much more dangerous question.
Perhaps the greatest security a president can possess is not a convoy. It is legitimacy. Not a battalion, but justice. Not an intelligence network, but public trust. Not an armoured vehicle, but a Constitution that permits him to lose power without losing his life.
Because the ruler who knows he can peacefully leave office has little reason to turn every political opponent into an enemy. The ruler who knows that his dignity, family, and legitimate interests will remain protected after office has less reason to cling desperately to power. And the ruler who genuinely serves his people may discover something ancient kings rarely understood: love is cheaper than repression.
A government that is trusted does not need to manufacture fear everywhere. A government that is feared must constantly manufacture security.
That is why the size of a ruler's security apparatus should sometimes make us ask not merely how dangerous the world is around him, but how dangerous his politics have made the world around him.
The ancient king surrounded himself with warriors because the throne was acquired by the sword. The modern authoritarian can surround himself with security because the throne may have become equally dependent upon fear. Democracy was supposed to break that cycle. It was supposed to replace the palace guard with the Constitution, the sword with the ballot, the conqueror with the citizen, and the permanent ruler with the temporary custodian of public power.
That is the unfinished promise of democracy.
And perhaps the greatest measure of a leader's success is not how many men stand around him with guns. It is whether, when the guns disappear, the people still want him there.
Because in the final analysis, the ruler who needs an army to make his own people obey him may command a country, but he does not necessarily possess its loyalty.
And the man who has conquered everyone around him may ultimately discover that he has conquered the very people who could have protected him.
The sword can protect a throne.
Only legitimacy can protect a republic.
About the Writer
Evan Sande Ndahura is a Ugandan political and legal commentator, columnist, poet, and social justice advocate whose writings focus on governance, constitutionalism, democracy, and the political economy of power in Africa. He is widely published on issues of judicial accountability, electoral justice, human rights, and institutional reform, with a particular emphasis on Uganda's political and legal systems. Writing from a Pan-African critical perspective, he interrogates the failures of state institutions and the lived realities of ordinary citizens under entrenched systems of power. He strongly believes that the liberation of Africa will ultimately be achieved through the mighty pen.