In situations where there is a looming risk of a mass collapse of power, rulers often feel a real threat of losing their influence and respond promptly to this danger.

Impulsive Centralization in the Face of Crisis

In situations where there is a looming risk of a mass collapse of power, rulers often feel a real threat of losing their influence and respond promptly to this danger. They begin to concentrate authority in their own hands, resorting to emergency measures to regain and maintain control over the situation.

Under the influence of this premonition, rulers frequently intervene directly in events, taking command and relying on trusted military forces. Instead of undertaking a thoughtful revision of administrative processes, they opt for a path of centralization—a strategy that may seem radical at first glance but, in their view, is a necessary measure to prevent potential chaos and public discontent.

In conclusion, the desire to maintain control and prevent the complete disintegration of the system overrides the pursuit of rational problem-solving. The vigorous response of the rulers—marked by a shift to personal management and a heavy reliance on military structures—becomes their primary tool in combating the impending crisis, allowing them to stabilize and preserve their power in the short term.

How might the premonition of a mass collapse of power reflect in the behavior of rulers?

Signs of an impending mass loss of power can evoke a sense of imminent threat among rulers, which, in turn, manifests in their immediate drive to consolidate and strengthen their authority. Recognizing the danger of losing control, rulers are inclined to take emergency measures aimed at consolidating management: they might begin to personally intervene in events, assume command responsibility, and seek the assistance of loyal military units. Thus, rather than engaging in a rational reassessment of existing processes, they choose the route of centralizing power to suppress any signs of disorientation and public discontent.

For example, one reflection from the text in file link txt notes,
"Such a situation cannot continue, and it can only be ended by the sovereign personally taking command" (source: link txt).
This underscores that the sense of impending threat compels the ruler to take personal responsibility in order to restore control over the situation.

Additionally, another excerpt from the same source demonstrates how this premonition leads to changes in administrative tactics. It is discussed that when the people are given the opportunity for self-governance, they may descend into license, which gave rise to the idea:
"This is how the idea of keeping power in the hands of the military was born" (source: link txt).
This idea suggests that in conditions of the threat of a mass collapse of the current order, rulers tend to rely on formal, often stringent, mechanisms of military control to stabilize the situation.

Thus, the premonition of the necessity for sweeping changes and a mass collapse of power can lead rulers to act impulsively, taking measures that may initially appear radical—such as shifting to personal command or relying on military structures—in order to retain control and prevent the ultimate disintegration of the power system.

Supporting citation(s):
"Such a situation cannot continue, and it can only be ended by the sovereign personally taking command" (source: link txt)
"This is how the idea of keeping power in the hands of the military was born" (source: link txt)