The architecture of political depravity Geopolitical encounters often force diplomats into a physical proximity with darkness. When analyzing the "most evil" figures encountered in international relations, we must look beyond simple malice to the structural damage these individuals inflict upon the world. Evil in a political context isn't a monolith; it manifests through calculated brutality, chaotic violence, or a devastating indifference to the social contract. To categorize these figures is to understand the different ways power can be weaponized against humanity. Brutal leaders and the machinery of state Rory Stewart identifies the first tier of evil as the "brutal leader." These are individuals like Suharto and Laurent Kabila who utilized the machinery of the state to enforce their will. Robert Mugabe stands as the archetype of this category. His legacy is defined by the total ruin of Zimbabwe, where a liberation hero transformed into a tyrant, surrounded by sycophants while systematically destroying his nation's economy and civil liberties. The physical act of shaking hands with such a figure is described not just as a diplomatic necessity, but as a visceral encounter with someone who has discarded the value of their own people. Warlords and the chaos of ground-level violence Below the heads of state lies the second category: the violent warlord. These are the actors who execute the violence directly. Stewart recalls Abdul Rashid Dostum and leaders of Shia militias in Iraq who would share a meal in the morning and orchestrate an attack by evening. This brand of evil is characterized by its immediacy and its intimate betrayal of trust. It is the violence of the tactical maneuver, where human life is a secondary concern to territorial or sectarian dominance. The reckless destroyer as a modern sin Perhaps the most controversial classification is that of the "careless destroyer." Stewart places Boris Johnson in this category, arguing that while Johnson lacks genocidal intent, his profound recklessness constitutes a form of evil. This isn't about blood on hands, but about the erosion of truth and the cavalier treatment of a nation's future, such as the handling of Brexit. When a leader treats the governance of a country as a game or a joke, the resulting systemic damage to social trust and institutional stability can be just as enduring as the scars of more overt violence. The diplomatic burden of shaking hands International relations necessitate these uncomfortable rituals. Diplomacy often demands a handshake with those responsible for atrocities. However, recognizing the distinct categories of these figures—from the authoritarian Vladimir Putin to the reckless populist—allows analysts to better understand the specific threats they pose to global order. We must continue to interrogate the moral cost of these interactions and the long-term impact of those who hold power without conscience.
Rory Stewart
People
- 4 days ago
- 4 days ago
- Feb 9, 2026
- Jan 23, 2026
- Jan 6, 2025
The Surreal Echoes of Afghanistan Returning to Afghanistan after two decades of Western intervention reveals a landscape that is both hauntingly familiar and jarringly different. Rory Stewart describes an atmosphere defined by surrealism. In the late 1990s, the Taliban regime was synonymous with shock tactics—public executions in stadiums and televisions hanging from trees as a warning against modern imagery. Today, after the United States and its allies spent $1.5 trillion on nation-building, the country has been handed back to the very group they sought to eradicate. This outcome represents a definitional failure of Western strategy. The return to traditional dress, the disappearance of women from public life, and a government run by clerics suggest a total reversal of twenty years of democratic efforts. However, a nuanced reality exists on the ground that Western narratives often overlook: a significant increase in security. While the Taliban’s methods are oppressive, the cessation of active civil war means that average citizens are no longer living in constant fear of being killed by a drone strike, a roadside bomb, or crossfire. This safety, though bought at the price of freedom, is a trade-off many Afghans acknowledge with a grim sense of relief. The Culture of Shoddiness in Modern Politics The failure in Afghanistan is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a deeper malaise within liberal democracies. We are witnessing an inescapable "face-planting" of elites who should be knowledgeable but instead project a systemic incompetence. Rory Stewart suggests that the political class has become a collection of "unreliable uncles"—confident, bullshitting figures who lack the earnestness required to solve complex problems. Inside the House of Commons or Congress, a culture of cynicism has replaced the serious work of policy-making. Earnestness is treated with derision; if a politician attempts to discuss the mechanics of child tax credits or infrastructure, they are viewed as a "loser" who has missed the point of the game. The "game," in this context, is gossip, scandal, and promotion. This environment repels competent, upwardly mobile individuals, leaving a vacuum filled by those who prioritize marketing over performance. The rise of Liz Truss is a prime example: a leader promoted not because of her success in previous roles, but because the system has stopped analyzing performance entirely. The Great British Disconnect: Beyond the M25 The recent unrest in the United Kingdom highlights a profound geographic and economic fracture. London functions as the sixth largest economy in the world, a gleaming citadel of wealth, while the rest of the country often feels like a different universe. Communities in the Northeast or West Virginia in the United States share a similar trajectory of decline—ex-industrial areas that have suffered decades of unemployment and substance abuse. This is not a problem that can be fixed with a single policy or a cleaned-up park. It is an "ambient rain" of dissatisfaction. When people feel that democracy has stopped delivering for them for three generations, they become susceptible to misinformation and rage. The riots sparked by false claims about a tragedy in Southport illustrate how quickly this kindling can be lit. In the absence of direct, relatable communication from leaders like Keir Starmer, who was criticized for appearing "wooden" during the crisis, the vacuum is filled by digital inflammatory agents. The Digital Wild West and the Free Speech Flashpoint The digital landscape has inverted the traditional social bell curve. In the real world, most people converge toward the middle; on the internet, the incentives reward the extremes. Elon Musk and his platform X have become central figures in this conflict. While Musk positions himself as a free speech absolutist, critics argue that the algorithms are not neutral. They actively promote inflammatory content because that is what generates attention and revenue. This creates a dilemma for governance. Historically, tech companies cooperated with regulators to remove harmful content, such as instructions for self-harm or cyberbullying. Today, a new era of confrontation has begun. When a platform owner "spoils for a fight" with regulators, it forces a question about criminal liability. If a newspaper editor encouraged a mob to burn down a house, they would be liable; the debate now centers on whether a social media owner should be held to the same standard when their algorithms amplify calls for violence. Redefining Charity: The Power of Cash Transfers Perhaps the most radical shift in thinking involves how we address global extreme poverty. For decades, the "teach a man to fish" mantra has dominated International Development. However, this approach is often rooted in a form of vanity—the belief that Westerners possess superior knowledge that must be bestowed upon the poor. In reality, people in extreme poverty often know exactly how to improve their lives; they simply lack the capital to do so. Organizations like GiveDirectly are challenging the traditional model by providing direct cash transfers. This bypasses the massive waste associated with "Gantt charts and consultants." Rory Stewart recounts seeing a $40,000 project in Zambia intended to improve school sanitation that resulted in nothing more than five red plastic buckets and two holes in the ground. The rest of the money was consumed by "monitoring and evaluation," flights for consultants, and administrative bloat. By contrast, giving $1,000 directly to a family allows them to fix their own roofs, buy livestock, and send their children to school—actions they perform far more efficiently than any foreign agency could. The Effective Altruism Fallout The collapse of FTX and the disgrace of Sam Bankman-Fried dealt a significant blow to the Effective Altruism movement. This movement, which sought to apply business-like rigor to philanthropy, was a major driver behind the push for evidence-based giving like GiveDirectly. The Bankman-Fried saga serves as a cautionary tale about celebrity culture and the ego of the "super-genius." We live in a society that assumes wealth is a proxy for intelligence, leading us to trust billionaire figures with the future of humanity. The reality is often more prosaic. True progress requires a return to trust—not in celebrities or flawed bureaucratic systems, but in the individuals living on the front lines of poverty and social decline. Whether in the Rwandan borderlands or the streets of Stockton-on-Tees, the solution lies in empowering people with the resources to rebuild their own lives, rather than imposing top-down fantasies that have repeatedly proven to fail.
Sep 12, 2024