In the annals of political history, we have witnessed political change through revolution and peoples’ sacrifice over time and gradually transforming of society in today’s set up from feudalism to republicanism. Democracy has traversed arduously a long way to attain today’s value-based political system democratic credentials. While attaining such a milestone, on its way, many popular leaders have steered and groomed and nurtured the idea of democratic values with their stewardship and stern leadership traits. In the process, there has been a sea change in defining leadership and its traits. For a long period in history, it was accepted that the leadership quality is inherited at birth, so based on this principle the monarchical system survived for centuries. With the introduction of democratic governance under the republicanism system, the idea of inherited leadership vanished and rejected the theory of divinity that is ordained by God to rule by a monarch. Under the republican system, any competent and capable citizen, with his or her own merit, talent and hard work, can achieve the height of success as desired. Under the republican order, the sovereignty of a nation bestows upon the people and the country is ruled by an elected body of people’s representatives through universal suffrage. As the constitution is a fundamental guarantor of the peoples’ rights, duties and privileges, the rulers are expected to govern the country according to the law, strictly abiding by democratic values and ideals. Contrary to the belief, if any elected leader pursues to become an absolute leader by usurping state power, the democracy turns into an authoritarian state. There are many instances, that a popularly elected leader through the democratic constitution, using the system, manipulating and manoeuvrings it very cleverly and tactfully, have converted themselves into an authoritarian leader. Many democratic leaders may succumb to their passions. But what kind of passion is that which makes them relinquish their own professed thoughts, beliefs and ideological formation and submit themselves against the path they follow for lifelong? Is it the passion to rise to the pinnacle of a social height as a liberator of the society, or the passion to be a national hero, the passion to be an ideologue and the passion to be worshipped as an idol? Or is it the hyper-praise by the close sycophants, inner circle or coterie of advisers for overrating the performances and emphasizing the character of the governance and leadership that make them a tyrant? Whatever may be the cause, the over-ambitious leader easily succumbs to his or her deep-seated unfulfilled desire to overtake the democratic ideals and replace by the thought to be authoritarian or tyrant to rule by thumb instead of rule of law and democratic value and ideals. There have been many such instances that democratically elected leaders have gradually succumbed to be an authoritarian leader such as the Hitler of Germany, Benito Mussolini of Italy, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Viktor Orban of Hungary, Alexzander Lukashenka of Belarus and Mugabe of Zimbabwe etc. These all were elected leaders under democratic constitutions. In South Asia, Sri Lanka and Pakistan are considered semi-authoritarian states. Once a person believes his/her progression obstructed or deprived of achieving the superiority in political height because of some as adversary may pursue stringent means of political manoeuvring to fulfil his/her desire. This all depends upon the personality of a leader and his personal background. The actual characteristic of a leader depends on the formative stage of a child’s childhood upbringing and the socio-cultural and economic environment surrounding his or her environment, whether poverty-stricken, neglected, marginalised, repressed or harassed by peers or relatives. If you look in-depth at an authoritarian leader, his personality was shaped early in childhood. Any leader that comes from a social background conditioned with repressed, neglected and marginalised surroundings, most probably may negate his idea towards the conservative and liberal order of democracy and nurture hateful or disdainful feelings towards it. Some leaders who were successful in making their credentials as a democratic leader presenting themselves as a liberator, social reformer, and harbinger of change as well as a conformist of democratic ideals and being elected through democratic elections were found escalated from their ideological hold and unmasked their true face before the people. Once they are elected to lead the nation as an executive head, they gradually lose the democratic tempo overpowered by their greed, passion and over-ambition of becoming an uncontested national hero. Such a leader usually prefers to raise populist agenda slogans and nationalistic issues, an instrument to attract disgruntled and angered youths in his favour. People are often attracted to the agenda with populist flavour and nationalist slogan that is conjoined with authoritarian ideas because they are bothered by complexity. The frustrated new generation for not being able to fulfil their dream, find employment according to their ability and competency, seeing social disharmony and divisiveness, disdain the democratic system. A sudden onslaught of diversity -diversity of opinions, diversity of experiences-therefore makes them angry. They quickly take the side with the leader who gives a popular slogan and agenda that makes them pleased and find solace in false promises. The new generation of young people who give less interest in the ideological based political system rather prefers to exercise their democratic rights through election as an opportunity to show their disdain. Often time in a symbolic expression they vote for an apolitical, anarchical and feeble candidate as an expression of their dislike to the existing system. These tyrannical leaders are adept at turning the tide into their own favour through their oratorical skills. These leaders know that they need a group of intelligent and talented persons from the civil society to speak in their favour, express staunch support and loyalty and therefore discretely mobilise such a group. They need members of the intellectual and educated elite, who could help them to counter the opposition and their intellectuals. Why people like an authoritarian leader is a grave question to be dealt with. Even in a democracy, if the value of democracy is decaying and the government is controlled by a few political and kleptocratic cronies, people become frustrated from decades of mismanagement, corruption, rigged election, irresponsible government, the common people sees the tyrannical form of government a stable, functioning. A tyrannical leader, however, may have been elected through a democratic election, find such a condition suitable for fomenting a different ideological path of dictatorial nature, where he can actualise his passion. While democracy has its inherent weakness, the authoritarian leader exploits it systematically oversteps in the institutional breakup and impose his will wherever is possible by undermining the court, judiciary and promoting crony capitalism. It tries to control mass media and attack personal character through online extremism.