Meaning: Natan Sharansky, an Israeli politician, human rights activist, and author, made this statement in his book "The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror" in 2004. The quote reflects his views on the nature of support for authoritarian regimes and the perception of popular support within those societies.

Sharansky draws a parallel between the purported support for the Soviet regime in 1985 and the perceived "army of true believers" in the Arab world. He argues that the outward appearance of support for these regimes does not necessarily reflect the true sentiments of the people living under them. This is a thought-provoking assertion that invites a deeper exploration of the dynamics of authoritarian rule and the complexities of popular sentiment within such societies.

In examining the first part of the quote, Sharansky references the support for the Soviet regime in 1985, which was the final years of the USSR before its eventual dissolution in 1991. The statement challenges the notion that a high level of reported support for the government accurately reflected the true feelings and beliefs of the population. This prompts consideration of the mechanisms through which authoritarian regimes maintain the illusion of widespread support, including propaganda, fear of reprisal, and restrictions on free expression.

The comparison to the Arab world is particularly significant given the context of the early 21st century, marked by the prevalence of authoritarian regimes in the region. Sharansky suggests that the perception of unwavering popular support for these regimes may be misleading, hinting at underlying dissent and discontent that is not readily apparent. This raises questions about the nature of political expression in these societies and the challenges of discerning authentic public sentiment in environments where dissent is often suppressed.

The quote also invites reflection on the concept of "true believers" within authoritarian systems. Sharansky's use of this term suggests a critical examination of the extent to which individuals genuinely embrace the ideologies and leadership of these regimes. He challenges the assumption that the visible displays of loyalty and adherence to the ruling powers accurately represent the inner convictions of the populace. This notion aligns with Sharansky's broader advocacy for freedom and democracy as essential components of a society where individuals can express their true beliefs without fear of repression.

Furthermore, the quote underscores the importance of distinguishing between the outward appearance of support for authoritarian regimes and the underlying reality of public sentiment. It serves as a reminder that public demonstrations of allegiance to a regime, whether in the Soviet Union or the Arab world, should not be taken at face value. Instead, a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of political dynamics and individual beliefs is necessary to truly grasp the nature of support within these societies.

In conclusion, Natan Sharansky's quote challenges conventional assumptions about the nature of support for authoritarian regimes and the complexities of public sentiment within such societies. By invoking the examples of the Soviet Union and the Arab world, he prompts a critical examination of the illusions of popular support and the genuine beliefs of individuals living under oppressive systems. This thought-provoking assertion invites deeper reflection on the complexities of political dynamics and the nuances of public sentiment in authoritarian environments.