Salami Tactics

It is an often-used practise in negotiations, for example in the business world and in politics: The so-called salami tactics, also called salami slicing, salami slicing tactics, and the like. It is a step-by-step method to get what you want to have from your opponent, the person you are negotiating with, by asking or taking it gradually, since it would be impossible to get it in one go, because your opponent would then refuse to give it or would resist in another way. I had to think of it when I thought about how contemporary autocrats or those political leaders who try to become autocrats seize power or already have seized power. The regular readers of this blog will understand that I think of people like Trump and Putin or Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary, all democratically elected political leaders who are rising or already established autocrats. But let me explain what salami tactics involve. I concentrate on the use of these tactics in politics.
It may not be a coincidence that also Orbán is on the way to autocracy, for the term “salami tactics” has been coined by the former Hungarian communist leader Mátyás Rákosi as a way to describe his technique of dividing and isolating the other political parties in his country at the end of the 1940s, when the communists had seized power: “demanding a little more each day, like cutting up a salami, thin slice after thin slice.” (source) To cut these parties off like slices of salami till nothing remains was the method used by the Hungarian communists in those days in order to eliminate them. And in the same way the method is still used in politics today (but also in business negotiations and elsewhere) as a way to get what you cannot get at once. In politics, the approach is twofold. On the one hand the opposing parties are discredited and defamed and sometimes even dehumanised, and on the other hand measures are taken that may as such be necessary, but that in addition give the leader more power. Or the leader takes a little bit more power in an illegal way and watches what then happens. If there is no protest worth the name or if (too) many people support the illegal seizure of power, the leader takes some more power in the next step. Etc. Financially eliminating the opponents is another measure of the arising – or already established – autocrat: take away state subsidies that till then were given to institutions you don’t like; forbid them receiving money from abroad. Then forbid thoughts that are allegedly foreign. And if all this works, finally you can try to control the internet as well.
This is a small selection of the possibilities available to an autocrat. Important is that the seizure of power goes on step by step. If taken all at once, at one time, it could give rise to much protest and opposition, which could make the power grab impossible. But taken one by one and one after the other, the measures are often seen as not unreasonable by a majority of people, or they are not seen as a reason for heavy protesting. Small measures with only little impact for most people are often accepted resignedly. It is difficult to organise many to stop them. And then the moment comes that it is too late to stop the autocrat and he can arrest people for the simple reason that they protest or at least he can put them on a sidetrack. That’s what we have seen in Putin’s Russia and that’s what we now see happening in Hungary, the USA and some other countries. For example, in the USA President Trump is pushing the boundaries of the law. “What will happen when I send the National Guard to a city governed by Democrats to ‘help’ the police? Is it legal? How does the city react? What happens if I ignore court orders? If nobody stops me and can stop me in this case, I can take the next step to increase my power.” That’s what the present US president seems to think, and that’s how Putin rose from a democratically elected president to the near-dictator he is now. Salam tactics: Cut up your opponents thin slice after thin slice till nothing is left of them.