The German-born American psychoanalyst and social philosopher Erich Fromm describes it as one of the three forms of what he calls the syndrome of decay. The core problem with narcissism, Fromm argues, is that narcissists are entirely unable to perceive reality outside of themselves, and it is precisely this detachment that makes it so destructive. According to Fromm, numerous factors can lead to an individual’s decay, but fundamentally, all people initially strive to “overcome life.” They do this in one of two ways: through biophilia – derived from the Greek bio (life) and philia (friendly love), or through necrophilia, from necro (death) and philia.

Biophilia embraces life, while necrophilia denies it, but both serve as coping mechanisms for the challenges of existence. Narcissism, Fromm suggests, emerges as a secondary mechanism, leaning toward the necrophilic path. Why? Because it is not life-affirming, intensely individualistic and egotistical, whereas humans are inherently social beings. However, being detached from reality does not prevent narcissists from adapting; they often conceal their disinterest in communal life and can even form groups.

“The highly narcissistic group is eager to have a leader with whom it can identify. The leader is then admired by the group, which projects its narcissism onto him… The narcissism of the individual is transferred onto the leader.” The irony is that narcissists are rarely in love with themselves. More often, their self-esteem is tied to a collective identity-nation, race, religion, or ideology-because deep down, they feel inadequate. Belonging to a group grants them significance, and they are willing to defend this perceived status at all costs. The result? Radicalism.

Yet, not all members of a radical movement are necessarily narcissists; the statistics would not align. The crucial factor is that the group itself functions narcissistically, a tendency Fromm describes as socially transmitted. Humans need to belong, especially during economic hardship or periods of low self-esteem. Leaders who wish to manage collective dissatisfaction can do so most effectively by providing the group with a narcissistic object-someone or something to admire and identify with.

History offers numerous examples of narcissistic groups – nations, political movements, and rebel factions – often radicalized and consumed by their mission. But what happens when someone challenges their ideology? Repression and violence happen. The Reign of Terror happens. Genocide in Armenia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Cambodia happen. Blacklists of writers, actors, and directors happen. The assassination of leaders and thinkers such as Caesar, Socrates, Trotsky, and Navalny happens. The Holocaust happens.

We can analyze famous figures like Napoleon and Hitler, who underestimated the Russian winter because their perception of reality was already distorted, or Mussolini, whose self-image as “Il Duce,” infallible leader of Italy, blinded him to failure. But often overlooked in historical studies is a continent that suffered profoundly under such dynamics – Africa. Specifically, the “Pearl of Africa,” a landlocked country in East Africa: Uganda.

Idi Amin Dada Oumee was born in 1925 in Koboko, a town in northwestern Uganda, then part of the British Protectorate. He belonged to the Kakwa ethnic group, a minority in Uganda. Raised by his mother, Amin received limited formal education. He was said to have worked as a cook before joining the King’s African Rifles, a regiment of the British colonial army, in 1946.

A big part of Idi Amin’s power came from his intimidating appearance. He stood around 6 feet 4 inches tall, was heavily built, and had a commanding presence that made others wary of confronting him. Amin was also an accomplished boxer and rugby player, Commander of the Ugandan Army- a position that gave him the power to orchestrate the 1971 coup and take control of the country.

On January 25, 1971, while the former president Obote was out of the country, Idi Amin seized power in a military coup. He claimed he was acting to save Uganda from corruption and promised to restore democracy, as well as hold free and fair elections. Many Ugandans initially welcomed his takeover.

In the first year alone, an estimated 10,000 people were murdered by the regime. Countless others were imprisoned and tortured. Overall, his regime has taken the lives of approximately half a million people, cementing Idi Amin’s place as one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century and earning him the title ‘‘The Butcher of Uganda’’. He systematically targeted political opponents, ethnic minorities such as the Acholi and Lango, and anyone perceived as a threat, executing or “disappearing” them without trial. Amin turned Uganda into a police state, relying on a pervasive network of secret police and the army to monitor, intimidate, and punish citizens, ensuring that dissent was virtually impossible. He eliminated almost all senior officers in the military, replacing them with loyal followers. At the same time, his policies- including the expulsion of the Indian and Pakistani communities in 1972 and reckless economic decisions- crashed the economy, causing widespread shortages, unemployment, and a collapse of trade. Torture, public executions, and beatings were common, leaving the country traumatized and isolated internationally, while Amin’s personal whims dictated the lives and deaths of thousands.

What is curious is how he managed to maintain his power. Yes, narcissism. He used colonial history to create division and empower Africans, tapping into their anger over years of colonial rule. But to do this, he had to completely reject the West and blame it for the past. The clearest signs of his narcissism were in his rhetoric. He called himself “His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular”. As modest as that sounds, he was not joking. Giveaway number one? A disconnection from reality. Robert Keeley, Deputy Chief of Mission in Kampala, Uganda, 1971-1973, gives more insight into Amin and his self-image, including his claims to have fought in Burma and World War II. The math does not add up – he was far too young – but he told these stories to inflate his ego and give himself more reasons to be admired.

Yet Amin also worked to secure the support of his people. He traveled the country on a charm offensive during his first year as dictator – and later, expelled Uganda’s Asian community, who ran many businesses. Amin championed himself as a defender of women’s rights and made a show of placing women in high-profile government positions. But behind the rhetoric, he exploited traditional ideas about how women “should” behave – a way to further control the population. He famously outlawed miniskirts in 1972, casting fashion-following women as ‘immoral’ and subjecting them to public humiliation and assault.

‘‘The Butcher of Uganda’’ projected his own ego onto the state, creating a system in which his personal authority became synonymous with the power of Uganda itself. This allowed him to intimidate, manipulate, and control people, as the population’s loyalty and fear reinforced his sense of grandeur. Opportunistic and self-serving behaviors were rewarded, so many adopted traits that mirrored his self-centered worldview. In effect, society became a reflection of his ego, where survival depended on mimicking his grandiosity, ambition, and relentless self-interest.

As much as Amin’s rule belongs to the past and Uganda is recovering economically and culturally, its effects are still present and serve as a cautionary example. Narcissism is the same everywhere – just view it through a modern perspective, and you might even consider claiming Greenland.

Written by

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.