Introduction
Throughout history, the Politics of Fear has always been one of the most effective tools for shaping power, obedience, and political order. From ancient city-states to modern governments, rulers have consistently turned to managing or producing fear in society to justify their authority. Fear, in its political sense, is not merely a natural emotion, but a strategic instrument that establishes an unstable balance between “security,” “power,” and “freedom.”
In the modern era, this concept has once again become central in political philosophy and social sciences. From Thomas Hobbes’ theory in Leviathan, which posits that fear is the foundation of the social contract, to contemporary politicians who rely on security threats, immigration, or economic crises to shape public opinion, fear has become an effective mechanism for political mobilization, social control, and maintaining governmental legitimacy.
Today, in a world where media, social networks, and information technology constantly reproduce news of crises, insecurity, and threats, the Politics of Fear has become a lived reality more than ever before. States, parties, and populist leaders exploit this collective emotion to construct a new political identity for nations — one built not on hope, but on anxiety and a sense of danger.
In this article, we will explore how the concept of the Politics of Fear has evolved from Hobbesian philosophy to modern populism, what role it has played — particularly in its most extreme form within religious governments — in shaping the state and political legitimacy, and why it has become one of the most important models of governance in the twenty-first century.
-
Philosophical Roots — Hobbes and the Fear-Based Contract
To understand the nature of the Politics of Fear, we must return to its point of origin in modern political philosophy: the seventeenth century and the thought of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes was the first philosopher to regard fear not merely as a human emotion but as a constructive element in the formation of the state and social order. In his view, human beings, in the state of nature — when no supreme power rules over them — exist in a condition of “war of all against all.” In such a world, each individual fears the other, for there is no guarantee of life or security.
Hobbes writes in his famous work Leviathan: “Men are driven by fear of violent death to submit to the social contract.” In other words, fear of death and insecurity compels human beings to surrender part of their freedom to a ruler or state in exchange for security. Here, the Politics of Fear, in its modern sense, is born: fear becomes the foundation of political order and the source of legitimate power.
Unlike philosophers such as Aristotle or Augustine, Hobbes did not see humans as naturally political creatures; he believed people join society not out of a desire for good, but out of fear of evil. This pessimistic view of human nature formed one of the most enduring frameworks in Western political thought. In essence, modern political philosophy was built from the beginning on a paradoxical relationship between fear and security.
A key point in analyzing Hobbes’ thought is that fear is not only the force that compels humans to submit to authority — it is also the force that keeps the state intact. As long as people fear the return of chaos, violence, or collapse, the state maintains its authority. Thus, in Hobbes’ theory, the Politics of Fear is both the origin of power and the mechanism for its continuation.
From this perspective, Hobbes concludes that the best form of government is one that can provide the greatest security against fear — even at the cost of limiting freedoms. In doing so, he lays the theoretical foundation for the powerful, monopolistic state: a state that is both a refuge against fear and a ruler that governs by managing fears.
It is here that the concept of “political fear” shifts from the realm of individual psychology to the domain of power and sovereignty. In the post-Hobbesian era, thinkers such as Spinoza, Rousseau, and Locke each tried to find a way to free humanity from this foundational fear, yet Hobbes’ idea of the unbreakable bond between power and fear remains at the heart of the theory of the modern state.
-
Politics of Fear in the Modern Era
With the transition from classical political philosophy to the nineteenth century, the Politics of Fear moved from a theoretical discussion into concrete institutional practice. If fear in Hobbes’s thought had a philosophical and anthropological dimension, in modern states it became a practical mechanism for preserving order and legitimacy. The modern state, by relying on bureaucratic apparatuses, policing institutions, and a national army, transformed fear from a scattered instinct into a centralized and systematic force.
In this period, fear no longer stemmed solely from chaos or foreign enemies; the state itself, as the guardian of security, became the producer and regulator of fear. A society that must fear war, poverty, or disease becomes increasingly dependent on state authority. Thus, fear turned into a tool for population management, guiding public opinion, and reproducing political power.
Particularly in the twentieth century — alongside two world wars, economic crises, and the rise of totalitarian ideologies — the Politics of Fear became one of the main pillars of governance. Totalitarian states, by creating imaginary enemies, constant threat narratives, and security propaganda, established a permanent state of emergency in which obedience to power was portrayed as the only path to survival.
Many philosophers and thinkers have analyzed this phenomenon. Carl Schmitt, in his famous theory of the “state of exception,” showed how the modern state can suspend law in the name of security while simultaneously claiming to preserve order. According to him, the sovereign is the one who decides when public fear has become so intense that law must be set aside. This definition reveals the very essence of the Politics of Fear in the modern state.
Michel Foucault, on the other hand, through his theory of “disciplinary power,” argued that in the modern era fear is not merely imposed externally but becomes internalized. Modern individuals gradually learn to control themselves because they feel constantly monitored by power. Here, fear operates not through direct threat, but through discipline, surveillance, and normalization of behavior.
As a result, the Politics of Fear in the modern period has two simultaneous faces:
- On the one hand, overt fear of war, disorder, or an external enemy, which strengthens state legitimacy;
- On the other, hidden fear of surveillance, deviation, or social exclusion, which leads to self-discipline among citizens.
In this complex structure, states learned to play a delicate and dual game between security and freedom. The more insecurity rises, the stronger the demand for authority becomes; conversely, when fear subsides, the desire for freedom increases. This psychological cycle has kept modern politics in a constant orbit between liberty and fear.
In short, during the twentieth century, the Politics of Fear evolved from a philosophical theory into an institutional and managerial model — one reproduced jointly by states, the media, and economic forces.
-
Politics of Fear in the Age of Media and Populism
3.1 Politics of Fear and Media
In the twenty-first century, mass media and social networks have given the Politics of Fear a new face. In a world where news of crises, insecurity, and violence is reproduced every moment, fear is no longer the product of objective reality but of the continuous circulation of information. Media not only reflects fear but constructs it, amplifies it, and uses it to shape public opinion.
Political leaders, recognizing this mechanism, use media to instill a sense of insecurity; audiences are constantly exposed to hypothetical or real threats: foreign enemies, economic collapse, cultural decay, or even the dangers of lifestyle change. As a result, the citizen lives in a state of perpetual anxiety, in which the desire for freedom fades in comparison to the need for security.
3.2 Politics of Fear and Populism
Populism thrives in such an environment. Populist leaders, by using emotional language and threat-based discourse, draw boundaries between “pure people” and “corrupt elites” or “dangerous outsiders.” They employ the Politics of Fear to mobilize the masses and turn the sense of danger into a tool for reproducing political loyalty.
In this framework, facts matter little; what matters is the intensity of emotion and the collective belief in danger. The populist politician, by staging a permanent state of crisis, casts himself as the savior. Thus, political fear becomes not a tool of analysis but a weapon of mass persuasion.
-
Politics of Fear and Religious Governments
4.1 Fear of Sin and Deviating from Sacred Law
In religious systems of governance, one can observe the continuation of the same logic of the “state of exception” and “disciplinary power.” In such regimes, legitimacy is derived not merely from the people’s vote but from spiritual or divine authority; yet, maintaining this legitimacy requires a constant sense of danger within society.
A religious government, by emphasizing external and internal threats, produces a chronic state of emergency in which doctrinal and moral security is prioritized over individual freedom. In such a system, open fear of enemies of the faith, apostasy, or cultural invasion merges with hidden fear of social exclusion and moral punishment.
Disciplinary power in this context operates not only through security institutions but through religious, educational, and cultural institutions as well. Individuals gradually learn to regulate their behavior according to official norms in order to avoid judgment, blame, or exclusion. In Foucauldian terms, this form of fear is internalized and enduring, because the individual monitors himself before power is forced to intervene.
Thus, the Politics of Fear becomes a primary instrument of social control. Society is suspended between faith and anxiety: on one side the promise of salvation, on the other the threat of punishment. The result is the formation of a culture of silence, self-censorship, and public passivity that weakens creativity, dialogue, and social hope.
Therefore, the Politics of Fear in religious governments presents a dual face:
- On the visible level, it reproduces authority through perpetual external enmity and moral slogans;
- And on the hidden level, it institutionalizes fear in the hearts of citizens through education, propaganda, and internalized supervision.
Such regimes, even in the age of communication and globalization, have successfully used the Politics of Fear to preserve ideological cohesion. But the cost is the erosion of political rationality, the spread of social anxiety, and a diminished capacity for free public discourse.
4.2 Totalitarian Fear and Its Expansion into Daily Life in Religious Regimes
In its extreme form, the Politics of Fear goes beyond political institutions and penetrates the very fabric of everyday life. This is what may be called “totalitarian fear”: a fear that, like a rhizome, rootless yet pervasive, spreads through every dimension of social existence. In such a condition, citizens fear not only state authority but also one another, as any action or speech may be interpreted as deviation from official norms.
A defining feature of these regimes is the fusion of traditional religious rules with modern instruments of power. In this structure, the Sharia or moral code — originally intended for spiritual guidance — becomes, with the help of technologies of surveillance, media, and education, a network of social control. The modern state provides precise mechanisms of regulation, while religious or moral ideology gives them meaning and legitimacy.
As a result, the body, clothing, speech, and even emotions become political arenas. Power enforces its presence in the smallest details of life by regulating daily behavior and personal appearance. This is where the “politics of the body” and the Politics of Fear intersect. The individual learns how to speak, how to appear, and even how to feel in order to avoid exclusion or punishment.
Such a model of control internalizes fear. Direct threat becomes unnecessary; the citizen internalizes the gaze of power and, through cautious self-discipline, reproduces the system. Michel Foucault describes this process as the internalization of disciplinary power, where external surveillance becomes self-surveillance.
Totalitarian fear in ideological religious regimes is so expansive that it erases the boundary between the private and the public. Home, school, workplace, and even the individual’s mind become part of the political field. This all-encompassing extension of fear erodes creativity and independent thought, and keeps society in a state of silence and passivity.
Ultimately, in such systems, the Politics of Fear is no longer merely a tool to preserve authority; it becomes part of the cultural and moral identity of society. Power, through the fusion of tradition and modernity, morality and technology, produces a lasting psychological discipline from which liberation requires a profound reconstruction of the culture of dialogue, awareness, and civic courage.
4-3. The Mechanism of Fear in Religion and the Modern State – Synergy of Divine and Secular Fear
One of the fundamental pillars of many religious teachings, especially in theological traditions, is the fear of punishment after death. In many religious systems, one of the core elements of moral governance is instilling fear in followers regarding the consequences of wrongful acts in the afterlife. This fear—primarily associated with “fear of Hell” and the punishments of the hereafter—is employed not only to influence individual and social behavior but also to establish personal and social order within religious communities. In such societies, God and the religion attributed to Him function as the primary instruments of imposing order. For example, in many Islamic and Christian communities, the individual must live in accordance with religious commandments to avoid the fires of Hell and attain eternal salvation.
In the modern era, a similar concept to the fear of divine punishment emerges in the form of “fear of the state” or “fear of Leviathan.” In his work Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes presents the state as a frightening and all-encompassing entity that must instill fear in citizens in order to create social order. In this theory, the state functions as a central authority capable of suppressing any form of disorder, and the threat of severe punishment becomes an essential tool for preserving order.
In a theocratic government, however, these two forms of fear become subconsciously intertwined. In such societies, individuals fear not only divine punishment but also the power of the state. A religious government, which presents itself as the representative of God on earth, simultaneously plays the role of Leviathan. Such a state must not only internalize the fear of Hell within individuals but also, using modern instruments of power—such as social surveillance, strict laws, and the threat of both religious and worldly punishments—spread fear throughout the entire society.
In these systems, fear of Hell and fear of worldly punishment merge, transforming the Politics of Fear into a highly effective instrument for controlling individuals. The government, in order to maintain power and social order, resorts not only to religious threats (Hell and divine punishment) but also employs political, social, and cultural pressure to force people into obedience and to shape their lives according to religious and governmental dictates.
In societies where this combination of religious and worldly fear dominates, individuals are subject to surveillance and punishment for even the smallest actions. Any deviation from defined norms—whether related to clothing, social conduct, or even thoughts—may lead to severe penalties. In such societies, personal life becomes increasingly controlled, and the community lives within a persistent atmosphere of fear and distrust.
As a result, modern theocratic governments—by merging two forms of fear, fear of the afterlife and fear of worldly punishment—deploy a dual Politics of Fear that simultaneously pressures society from within and without, leaving no escape. At this point, life under such a government, particularly when modern tools of surveillance and repression are employed, becomes catastrophic, threatening not only personal security but also human freedom and dignity.
4-4. The Phenomenology of Fear in a Theocratic State – Hell in Everyday Life
Within a phenomenological framework, fear of Hell and fear of the modern state may simultaneously and inseparably manifest themselves in everyday life under a theocratic government. In such a system, the religious state not only uses modern tools to exercise power and suppress dissent, but also regards itself as the executor of divine law, thereby transforming what originally functioned as a religious threat (fear of punishment after death) into a tangible component of everyday life.
In many religious teachings, Hell is depicted as a realm where those who commit grave sins are subjected to unimaginable and eternal torment. These descriptions—particularly in sacred texts—serve as a tool to generate fear and deter sinful behavior. However, in a theocratic regime, fear of Hell is not confined to the realm of the mind or the afterlife; rather, it is implemented tangibly in everyday life.
In these societies, the religious state legitimizes itself in creating a worldly representation of Hell using modern instruments of power. Instead of confining suffering and torment to the afterlife, the theocratic government, empowered by modern technologies and justified by religious rhetoric, brings these concepts into material reality, implementing them in the form of social, cultural, and political punishments. As a result, fear becomes not only embedded in thoughts and beliefs but also concretely internalized through behavior.
This phenomenon is particularly visible in religious governments such as the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Taliban in Afghanistan. Here, religious punishment is directly linked to secular punishment, and through modern mechanisms such as surveillance systems, media censorship, and strict legislation, fear infiltrates every aspect of life. For example, compulsory veiling in Iran is one of the most prominent cases where fear of Hell and fear of worldly punishment converge in a social and cultural context. Individuals are made to fear both “divine wrath” and “worldly punishment.”
Specifically, physical and psychological tortures employed in some religious societies for “purification” not only cause suffering and death but also serve as a constant warning and threat to the entire society. In fact, the religious government, empowered by modern means and justified through theology, absolves itself of moral accountability and easily imposes worldly punishment in place of Hell.
In such societies, everyday life becomes a battleground shaped by psychological, legal, and social pressures. Individuals not only fear governmental punishment but must also continually fear divine retribution. Ultimately, this fusion of religious and worldly fear—fear of Hell and fear of the state—places individuals in a constant state of existential threat, where any attempt toward freedom or deviation from religious norms results in severe punishment.
Thus, in modern theocratic governments, Hell becomes an embodied, tangible phenomenon in daily life, just as sacred texts describe it as a post-mortem threat. It is now imposed through real-world punishments, threats, and restrictions. Phenomenologically, this constitutes a form of “earthly Hell” where any minor deviation from religious norms may result in severe consequences.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the examination of the Politics of Fear in modern and religious governments reveals that fear is not merely a psychological feeling or an individual reaction, but a deeply embedded structure at the foundation of political power. In religious systems, fear of sin and the afterlife has been internalized culturally and doctrinally, and generations have been socialized through it. In modern systems, fear of the state, law, and worldly punishment has taken the place of that religious fear. Yet in modern theocratic regimes, these two forms of fear merge, producing a dual structure of domination: fear of God and fear of the ruler, unified within a single system.
In such regimes, the state regards itself not only as the representative of God, but also as the executor of divine law on earth. Thus, what was promised in religious texts — Hell for sinners in the hereafter — is now reproduced in the daily lives of the people. In other words, the theocratic state brings “Hell” from the afterlife to the earthly realm. Fear of Hell materializes in the form of torture, repression, social control, and psychological and cultural pressure in everyday life.
This mechanism, phenomenologically, transforms human life under a theocratic government into a state in which sacred suffering becomes an instrument of political order. Any form of disobedience, unveiling, protest, or even different thinking is suppressed through religious logic and modern tools. This is the moment when the Politics of Fear transforms from a method of control into an ontological condition — a state in which individuals fear not only power, but the very experience of existing in the world. In a theocracy, the fall or original sin is concretely institutionalized into daily life, imposed on people as perpetual guilt and humiliation, attached to every aspect of their existence.
Within this framework, hidden fear — the kind embedded in daily behavior, in dress, language, or even in silence — plays a vital role. This fear no longer requires direct threat; the citizen becomes the observer and executor of power. Thus, the theocratic state does not need to torture everyone; it suffices that people fear one another, fear the law, fear God, and even fear themselves.
Yet, in the face of this condition, the only path to liberation is the reconstruction of human understanding of freedom and responsibility. As thinkers such as Foucault and Arendt remind us, resistance to the Politics of Fear begins within the individual; from the moment one refuses to reproduce the gaze of power within oneself. Awareness, dialogue, and the restoration of human dignity form the three essential elements for breaking the chains of fear.
In the end, if the Politics of Fear seeks to build Hell on earth, the politics of awareness and liberation can transform that very earth into a place for rebuilding life. The future of humanity depends on whether it can overcome the fear imposed upon it — from both within and without. And this question is not merely political; it is existential.
