Mikhail Bulgakov’s literary genius lies not only in his capacity to weave intricate tales blending realism, satire, and the supernatural, but also in his ability to pierce the veil of oppressive ideologies and dissect the anatomy of authoritarianism. In his works, Bulgakov’s trenchant critiques of tyranny and the cult of personality remain eerily prescient, transcending the Soviet reality he lived in to offer timeless insights into political and social dynamics that resonate even in the age of Donald Trump. His novels, plays, and stories illuminate the dangers posed by leaders who weaponise fear, manipulate truth, and elevate themselves above the collective good, creating a framework through which the parallels between Joseph Stalin’s totalitarianism and Trump’s populist authoritarianism can be understood.
Bulgakov lived and wrote during one of the most oppressive regimes in history: the Stalinist era in the Soviet Union. His magnum opus, The Master and Margarita, serves as a parable about power, freedom, and truth. The novel offers an allegorical confrontation with the chilling mechanisms of totalitarian rule, exposing the ways in which authoritarian leaders, like Stalin, manipulate reality and suppress dissent. Bulgakov’s depictions of state machinery—one that distorts facts, silences critics, and creates a paralysing sense of fear—speak directly to the realities of Stalin’s USSR. However, they also resonate with the contemporary political landscape, where figures like Trump have harnessed demagoguery and media manipulation to cultivate personal power and undermine democratic institutions.
In The Master and Margarita, the devilish figure of Woland represents a dark mirror of ultimate authority, capable of sowing chaos, manipulating truths, and revealing the moral frailty of the system. When Woland descends upon Moscow, his seemingly absurd tricks, such as conjuring up money that later turns to worthless paper or exposing the corruption of the Soviet elite, force the populace to confront the hollowness of their lives and the lies underpinning their society. Woland’s antics illuminate the inherent hypocrisies of an oppressive system that purports to operate on ideological purity but is riddled with venality and deceit. This critique of Stalin’s regime resonates today as a warning against political leaders who peddle disinformation to distract from their corruption or inadequacies. The parallels to Trump’s presidency are striking: the cultivation of an “alternative facts” narrative, the relentless attacks on the press, and the fostering of division through performative populism echo Bulgakov’s depiction of a society unravelled by its leadership’s disdain for truth.
One of Bulgakov’s sharpest insights is the relationship between fear and power. In Stalinist Russia, fear was omnipresent: neighbours spied on one another, dissenters disappeared in the night, and the state maintained control through constant surveillance and terror. In The Master and Margarita, Bulgakov captures this suffocating climate through the plight of the Master, a writer whose subversive manuscript has been rejected and who faces persecution for refusing to conform to state ideology. The Master’s descent into despair and his retreat into a mental asylum highlight the crushing effects of a regime that punishes creativity and free thought. Bulgakov, himself a writer who suffered under censorship and state scrutiny, channels his own experiences into the Master’s plight, crafting a cautionary tale about the devastating toll of authoritarianism on intellectual and artistic freedom.
Trump, though governing in a vastly different context, wielded fear in ways reminiscent of such authoritarian dynamics. His rhetoric often painted the media, immigrants, and political opponents as existential threats, creating a polarised and anxious populace. By positioning himself as the sole arbiter of truth, Trump fostered a cult of personality that sought to delegitimise dissent and disempower institutions that challenged him. Bulgakov’s portrayal of the Master’s isolation and despair serves as a reminder of how dangerous leaders stifle creativity and critical thinking by engendering a culture of fear and repression.
Bulgakov’s novella Heart of a Dog provides another lens through which to examine the perils of authoritarianism and its echoes in contemporary politics. The story, a scathing satire of Soviet attempts to reshape human nature, centres on a scientist, Professor Preobrazhensky, who transforms a stray dog, Sharik, into a human being. Sharik, initially docile and loyal, becomes increasingly belligerent and crude, embodying the worst traits of both man and beast. The novella serves as a critique of Soviet efforts to create a “new man” through ideological indoctrination and social engineering, revealing the hubris and danger inherent in such experiments.
In Sharik, Bulgakov encapsulates the grotesque consequences of authoritarian overreach: a creature both inept and destructive, wielding power without wisdom or restraint. Sharik’s rise to prominence within the novella mirrors the ascent of demagogic leaders who exploit populist appeals while lacking the sophistication or integrity to govern responsibly. Trump’s presidency, marked by impulsive decision-making, disdain for expertise, and a divisive communication style, echoes Bulgakov’s warning. The character of Sharik serves as a metaphor for the chaos that ensues when unqualified individuals are elevated to positions of influence, driven not by competence but by the manipulation of base instincts and emotions.
Moreover, Heart of a Dog illustrates the fragility of civil society when exposed to leaders who prioritise personal gain over collective well-being. Sharik’s transformation into the brutish Sharikov destabilises the household, creating an atmosphere of tension and disorder. This mirrors the way Trump’s leadership often undermined norms and institutions, eroding trust in the democratic process. Bulgakov’s message is clear: when those in power disregard the social fabric and the responsibilities of leadership, the result is a dehumanised, fractured society.
One of Bulgakov’s most subversive techniques is his use of absurdity and humour to expose the absurdities of authoritarian rule. In The Master and Margarita, the oppressive bureaucracy of Soviet society is lampooned through surreal and fantastical episodes. The character of Nikanor Ivanovich Bosoy, who becomes entangled in a Kafkaesque investigation due to Woland’s machinations, exemplifies the absurdity of a system that creates scapegoats and enforces arbitrary rules to maintain control. This satirical critique of Soviet bureaucracy parallels the Trump administration’s chaotic and often contradictory policies, where misinformation and incompetence were frequently masked by theatrical displays of authority.
Bulgakov’s absurdist approach highlights the ways in which authoritarian regimes rely on spectacle to distract from their failures. The Trump era was similarly characterised by a relentless barrage of attention-grabbing controversies that often obscured substantive issues. Bulgakov’s work warns us that this performative aspect of authoritarianism is not mere farce but a calculated strategy to disempower the populace by overwhelming them with confusion and fear.
Another central theme in Bulgakov’s work is the erosion of moral and ethical values under authoritarian rule. In The Master and Margarita, the character of Pontius Pilate wrestles with his conscience when faced with the decision to execute Jesus. Pilate’s moral cowardice, his inability to defy authority despite recognising the innocence of the condemned, serves as a powerful allegory for the complicity of individuals within oppressive systems. This moral quandary is emblematic of the broader societal decay fostered by authoritarian leaders who demand loyalty over integrity.
Trump’s presidency similarly underscored the dangers of moral compromise in the face of authoritarian tendencies. His administration often pressured officials and lawmakers to prioritise loyalty to Trump over adherence to democratic norms and ethical principles. Bulgakov’s portrayal of Pilate’s internal struggle serves as a stark reminder of the ethical failures that enable authoritarian regimes to thrive, as individuals abdicate their responsibility to resist injustice.
Bulgakov also understood the allure of the cult of personality, a phenomenon central to both Stalin’s and Trump’s leadership. In Stalinist Russia, propaganda elevated Stalin to a god-like figure, his image omnipresent in Soviet life. In The Master and Margarita, Woland’s theatrical performances reveal the susceptibility of the masses to manipulation and spectacle, demonstrating how authoritarian figures exploit the human desire for order, meaning, and leadership. Woland’s ability to captivate and control mirrors the way Stalin maintained his grip on power through propaganda and fear.
Trump’s political career, too, was defined by his cultivation of a cult of personality, with rallies, slogans, and social media serving as tools to galvanise supporters and marginalise dissent. Bulgakov’s critique of this phenomenon is profound: by focusing on the leader as a singular source of authority and truth, societies surrender their agency and critical thinking, becoming complicit in their own subjugation.
While Stalin’s regime was marked by overt repression and terror, and Trump’s presidency operated within the framework of a democracy, Bulgakov’s works illuminate the universal mechanisms of authoritarianism that transcend time and context. His nuanced portrayals of fear, truth, and power underscore the importance of vigilance in the face of leaders who seek to erode democratic norms, manipulate information, and foster division. Bulgakov’s ability to critique these dynamics with wit, absurdity, and profound moral insight ensures that his warnings remain as relevant today as they were in his own turbulent times.
Through The Master and Margarita, Heart of a Dog, and his broader oeuvre, Bulgakov provides a timeless critique of authoritarianism, reminding us of the perils of unchecked power and the fragility of freedom. His works challenge us to resist complacency, to value truth and creativity, and to recognise the enduring dangers posed by leaders who, like Stalin and Trump, seek to place themselves above accountability. In Bulgakov’s imaginative and incisive narratives, we find both a mirror for our times and a call to action to safeguard the principles of justice and humanity.
