Take, for example, Alexander Lukashenko. He is in power for the last 26 years. How does he maintain the chain of command? Why do his ministers obey him? Why do bureaucrats obey him? Why does the Army obey him? Why wasn't he toppled yet?
The same question can be asked about Vladimir Putin.
What is their common secret about keeping a grip on the top office?
This is a question that the selectorate theory tries to answer. Essentially:
As a dictator, you need to identify the people who are essential to you remaining in power. For example: the controllers of the army, the police, etc.
Then, you need to establish control of the revenue stream. This can take the form of taxes from the people, or natural resources that can be extracted to generate money.
Now, ensure the loyalty of the essential people by paying them using the revenue stream. Pay them enough so that they will remain loyal to you and follow your commands, but not so much that they cease to be dependent upon you.
You have now established a working dictatorship.
This is how dictatorships rise to power and stay there for many years. All that is needed is the support of a relatively small group of people, and the people can be kept under control by the army/police even if a majority disapproves of the current government.
If you don't think this is realistic, picture five people with machine guns in a room with one hundred people.
Why do the army/police follow their superiors' orders? Because the dictator's essential supporters don't just take the money they get from the dictator for themselves, they also redistribute it to their followers in order to ensure their loyalty, who do the same to their followers -- all the way down the chain of command.
There are some exceptions to this system. The first is protests. If the people are able to gather in a large enough group and organize, they are sometimes able to overwhelm the power of the state. Then, the state is either forced to make reforms, or it is completely overthrown and replaced with another. This does not happen often, however; usually, the government is able to repress the rebellions, unless the leader displeased his essential backers, and they support it. However, sometimes, such as when hundreds of thousands of people gather together in the aftermath of a natural disaster, the protests can succeed and the government is overthrown or forced to institute reforms.
Another thing that may cause a dictatorial government to fall or democratize is a failing economy. As less and less money trickles back to the government, the leader becomes unable to pay its essential backers as much as it used to. As a result, they may decline to suppress the population in the face of rebellion, and the government will be overthrown. Alternatively, the regime may decide to increase the citizens' productivity by providing public goods and increasing freedoms. For dictators, this path is risky, however, as this simply increases the ability of the people to protest for more reforms.
For more information, you can check out The Dictator's Handbook or watch CGP Grey's video on the subject Rules for Rulers for a simple explanation.
What makes you think there is a common secret? There are parallels and differences between all those cases.
Look at countries which had a regime change in recent decades. Iraq. (OK, that one was imposed from outside.) Libya. Ukraine. For that matter, look at the fate of the Communist elites and the average population after the German Reunification -- while most people are objectively better off than they used to be, how that happened was traumatic.
If you really want to know the details, the best resource I know of for the layman is the Cannonical Arab Tyrant's Manual. It was started as a hashtag during the beginning of the Arab Spring by online activist Iyad al-Baghdadi, and was built collaboratively by contributors. I'll quote some of the highlights below (skipping similar entries)
A lot of this is somewhat tongue in cheek of course, but it gets more serious at the end. Also, while it started out Arab-centric, and some of the entries are that way, it was quickly pointed out by people from places like Russia, China, and Central America that most of it is actually universal. If you really want some in-depth analysis of what is going on in the unfree world from insiders (who aren't profiting off the keptocracies in question), I'd suggest hitting their main website, for serious articles and podcasts.
I don't know as much about internal politics of Belarus', but I can answer how it works in Russia. It's no secret, really.
All of the above means that odds of a successful coup are pretty low, while risks are quite high. It's just not worth it for the people already near the top.
Not all dictatorships are created equal.
What they have in common:
Pretending to be a democracy (monarchies are happy in their own club).
Top-down economy. The government has a steady (for an extended period) income not really depending on taxes. It may be high profit government-owned or controlled natural resources (oil), government-owned big businesses, government-controlled essential trade, external credit stream, cohesion funding, whatever... that is not dependent on people's economic activity. The government purcasing power overhelms the rest of the economy. The big business (if exists) dependent on the government spending. The government takes care to suppress or overtake any attempt on independent business.
Great deal of government spending assigned for "security" (police, army) and high percentage of the country's workforce employed in these structures. Also, extended rights and privileges of the "armed class". All these people depending on the very existence of the oppressive structure, and loyal to the government (or better yet, loyal to their direct management) and not to the law.
Most of the media controlled to support the government. The ruler is represented as essential for the very existence of the country, economy, peace, etc... The ruler is pictured as physically, mentally, etc... superior to the general public and to other countries' leaders.
A government-appointed external enemy (one that is allied to anyone inside trying to question the absolute power).
A weak and grotesque (and sometimes even government-appointed) opposition that never gets more than 15-20% of votes.
Unlimited term for the top ruler. It may be either that:
Warm and profoundly personal relationships between the ruler and the rulers of similar regimes.
Executive branch controlling legislative and judical branches.
Rampant corruption. Bribes essential for everyday life. Everyone can be punished for it, but only select ones actually prosecuted (and even less actually punished hard).
The society as a whole is profoundly tolerant to rules and laws broken. Everyone is forced somehow in the wrong and is Okay-ish with others stealing something as long as he himself is alowed to make living.
You mention specifically Lukashenko and Putin and one thing nobody have talked about is how candidates are made invalid up to an election.
For Lukashenko it was of course Sergei Tikhanovsky that was not allowed to run.
By setting up rules for who can run (Has to be a Russian national for a number of years etc) the valid opposition gets removed and what is left is either people you don't want to vote for, or as it was in Belarus, a coalition that made no sense.
In many ways this also resemble how established parties, in democracies, sometimes build structures that enforce their own power.
My guess is that with only Sviatlana running in the recent election Lukashenko could have won without election fraud (and there is a chance there wasn't fraud, because there were no officials from other countries). Putin can of course win any election with ease.
A dictatorship is a political system, where political pluralism is not legislated and dependent, not independent Propaganda is executed. There is no Democracy: right of assembly, right of speech, right to vote... (human rights). One could say dictatorship is the opposite of democracy. A dictatorship does not have Separations of Powers (Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary).
Belarus: The main Precursor/Problem why Alexander Lukashenko can stay so long in power and continue his authoritarian Regime is because the Belarusian constitution offers an unlimited time for a presidential winner if reelected again and again, after an emerged referendum. Another reason is that the presidential Ruler of Belarus after the Constitution can control both Legislative and Executive. Take for example the United States of America, the presidential ruler is part of the Executive but not of the Legislate (Congress), neither of the Judiciary. This means there is a big power vacuum in Belarus. The Belarusian president also can influence the judiciary system, because the highest judiciary court can only appeal a case against if the head of state agrees. That's not how a judiciary system is supposed to function. Article 1 | Section 1 of the Belarusian Constitution declares:
The Republic of Belarus is a unitary, democratic, social state based on the rule of law. The Republic of Belarus exercises supreme control and absolute authority over the whole of its territory, and shall implement an independent internal and foreign policy. The Republic of Belarus shall defend its independence and territorial integrity, its constitutional system, and safeguard legality and law and order.
Though the Belarusian Constitution proclaims Belarus as a democratic republic the systematic separation and representation of powers, shows that it's rather an authoritarian regime than a republic. This is not new, because even all countries call themselves democracies even though they're not. Paradoxically Nazi Germany's so-called democracy, mentioned by Goebbels, Hitler's minister on propaganda was a dictatorship.
The main perspective is not only meant to be looked from Lukashenko's or dictators' methodical, political participation but also the constitutional, fundamental system of Belarus. Law is the main problem of the country's failing. If Law is not maintained and ordered correctly for a country, so will not the unwise political participation occur? If lawlessness then no stability of president, people, and society.
