When an ideology cannot compete on merit, it demands loyalty instead. When institutions lag rivals, leaders don’t fix the institutions—they intensify commitment to the ideology. This is the pattern of compensating for competency using commitment: doubling down on fervor when facing failure, silencing dissent to mask incompetence, and demanding that believers work harder rather than work smarter. History shows us this strategy always fails. The only question is how much damage it causes before the collapse.
After WWII, the Soviet Union’s economy grew as it industrialized, apartment complexes were built for the growing urban population. Heck, it even made some global accomplishments as it had the first man to go to space in the form of Yuri Gagarin in 1961. Times were good indeed.
But then after the ouster of Nikita Khruschev in 1965, Brezhnev took over the communist superpower for the next two decades and saying he overstayed his welcome is an understatement. By the mid-70s, Western European nations such as West Germany and Italy not only recovered but entered the first world. Ironically, the biggest winner of WWII faced economic stagnation. It was obvious to the Reds that the West had won in terms of quality – economically and militarily. More importantly, the entire world was in love with Western soft power in the forms of Hollywood movies and MTV’s music videos. Seriously, what was your favorite Soviet movie from the 70s?
The solution they came up with? The Soviet Union had size. It was the largest country in terms of land area and had a population of 290 million, 11 timezones and over 100 languages. Since they couldn’t match Western quality, they would overwhelm with quantity. The Soviets made its people commit to the idea of communism. Imagine, making waves of soldiers run towards the enemy who had superior weapons to the point of eventually overtaking them through sheer numbers and fanaticism. Metaphorically, that is the idea they had. Anyone who questioned whether communism was working was at best ostracized as a traitor or at worst imprisoned for life. Ironically, this killed the any chances of reform that could have saved the biggest political experiment of the 20th century. Instead, you had an entire nation who had to bow down and admit communism was working and only had to work harder and believe in the cause. For a few years it worked. Remember, communism was at its strongest in the mid-80s with the confrontation between the 2 superpowers almost culminating when USA president Ronald Reagan called it an ‘empire of evil’. But when a younger Soviet leader named Mikhail Gorbachev took over and implemented perestroika, communism started fizzling out. In the time of under 5 years, communism collapsed starting with Poland and ended with Kazakhstan. Pro-Kremlin critics now blame Gorbachev for the collapse, but it was inevitable. The Soviet Union attempted to compensate for the competency of the West’s economic success, softpower popularity and military capabilities by implementing rigorous commitment in its people. It failed.
This pattern—demanding commitment to mask incompetence—is not unique to communism. It is the hallmark of totalitarian ideologies that cannot compete with results. And today, we are watching it happen again.
After the end of the 6-day war in 1967, when the Arab militaries lost to tiny Israel in under a week, Arab nationalism died. A new kid on the block entered in the form of political Islam – known today as Islamism. In 1979, 3 events helped Islamism to capitulate to the global market similar to what happened to communism.
With Shia Iran and Sunni Saudis having a contest to see who could out-Islam the other, political Islam spread globally. However, after multiple war attempts with Israel, it was obvious to the Arabs, they can’t beat Israel militarily. In terms of science and technology they are behind – there are only two universities from Muslim countries consistently ranked in the top 100. The Islamist world is implementing a similar strategy with measuring up to their adversaries. They know they cannot compete with them as their institutions aren’t as successful. Instead, a culture has been driven where fanaticism and excess commitment is encouraged by saying they will eventually win. Any Muslim who questions the effectiveness of political Islam is branded a traitor and called a ‘Mossad agent’—the exact same tactic the Soviets used when they labeled dissidents as traitors. The playbook is identical: when you can’t win on merit, demand absolute loyalty and silence critics.
Once again, a totalitarian ideology is attempting to compensate for competency using commitment. And similarly, there will be a sharp rise of Islamism before a sudden vertical drop. The problem is the longer it takes, the harder the fall will be. Political Islam has been on the ascent since the 70s and is now entering its fiftieth year, which means it has exceeded communism’s timeline.
When communism fell, the West was there to integrate the Soviet republics within their sphere of influence; but even then, Russia suffered economically and socially throughout the 90s. There will not be a similar buffer when political Islam falls. Muslims should heed this warning: the voices within our communities calling for reform, questioning the effectiveness of political Islam, advocating for institutional development over ideological purity—these are not traitors. They are trying to prevent a catastrophic collapse. Silencing them only hastens the fall. The Soviet Union proved that you cannot compensate for failing institutions with demands for greater commitment. Commitment without competency leads only to ruin. The choice is whether to learn from history or repeat it.