How was authoritarian rule maintained?

Legal methods, use of force, propaganda, and popular support — regimes usually combine all four, not just one.

Special rights a government claims during a crisis, letting it rule without normal legal limits — used by Hitler (1933 Reichstag Fire Decree) and Stalin to justify one-party control.

Stalin's secret police in the USSR — arrested, interrogated and executed people accused of being 'enemies of the people' during the Great Purge.

Stalin's campaign of arrests, show trials and executions targeting the Communist Party, army and ordinary citizens — killed roughly 700,000 people, an example of force-based maintenance of power.

Building up a leader's image as a wise, almost superhuman figure through propaganda — posters, songs, statues and staged events, e.g. Stalin as 'Father of Nations'.

Neighbourhood committees Castro set up across Cuba from 1960 — organised community welfare but also watched for counter-revolutionary activity, blending genuine mobilisation with surveillance.

Sent young volunteers to teach reading across Cuba, cutting illiteracy from about 23% to under 4% in a year — built real popular support for Castro's government.

The USSR under Stalin relied heavily on terror and forced compliance (Great Purge, gulags); Castro's Cuba relied more on genuine welfare delivery and mass mobilisation (literacy, healthcare, CDRs), though both used propaganda and one-party control.

Because regimes can deliver real material gains (land, healthcare, literacy, jobs) that create authentic loyalty among many citizens, alongside — not only instead of — coercion.

The Soviet system of forced-labour camps, used to imprison and punish political prisoners and helped instil fear across society.

Legal and coercive tools (courts, police, army) often continue from the old regime and are simply redirected; propaganda and mass organisations are usually new tools built by the authoritarian government.

Victims of purges and camps emphasise terror and fear; loyal supporters and beneficiaries of welfare programmes emphasise genuine achievement and pride — both perspectives can be true of the same regime at once.