Thomas Carlyle famously declared that history is “the biography of great men,” a view long-since dismissed as we came to recognize the power of systemic economic and social conditions. But we underestimate the force of individual personalities at our peril, argues International Relations professor Rose McDermott. From Trump in Greenland to Putin in Ukraine, the psychologies and belief-systems of just a few individuals are driving geopolitics. To avoid catastrophic miscalculations, McDermott warns that we must stop relying on systemic models of change, and instead try to get into the heads of the leaders reshaping our world.

If contemporary geopolitical events teach us anything, it is the power of individual leaders to exert decisive influence over the course of global history. Vladimir Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and Donald Trump’s recent attack on Venezuela represent only two of the most obvious examples of leaders who override international law and institutional norms to do what they want to do.

States are often seen as the central agents of change in international relations. Our dominant models and theories, like realism and liberalism, suggest that state power, regime type, economic structure, and various other institutions are the primary influences on economic productivity, the balance of power, and war. These forces have indeed been powerful in helping shape interactions between states. Yet, if this century has taught us anything, it is that, contrary to the expectations of dominant theories of international relations, states can be captured by individuals whose idiosyncratic behavior exerts decisive influence on global affairs.

If this moment in time offers instruction about the future, it is simply this: individuals matter. This goes beyond the traditional idea that there are different levels of analysis, which suggests that leaders can influence international outcomes through such mechanisms as their control over the instruments of state coercion. Individuals acting on their own and within the context of non-state actors can also prove decisive. One need only think of the role of Osama bin Laden in orchestrating the attacks on 9/11 against the United States. Furthermore, leaders who dominate their states, from Vladimir Putin in Russia to Donald Trump in the United States, demonstrate that specific features of personality and mere personal whim can impose enormous consequences on millions of people. This is particularly concerning when such leaders control nuclear weapons.

___

If this moment in time offers instruction about the future, it is simply this: individuals matter.

___

Critically, leaders who create personalist forms of power—whether through fear or by inspiring followers—fall prey to specific psychological limitations and biases such as narcissism and paranoia that have profound consequences for stability in international relations. And, in some cases, they can manipulate their followers to achieve large-scale mass mobilization in their favor without requiring military force. Of course, some leaders use military force to support their regimes, but others can rely on followers within their constituencies to intimidate, harass and otherwise subdue domestic opponents without having to carry out the kind of military raids more closely associated with military juntas or some authoritarian regimes in the past.