The subject’s desire, a perpetual lack, constitutes a fundamental void at the heart of the psyche. This void, a gaping maw of incompleteness, seeks incessant repletion. In the political sphere, this desire manifests as a demand for an impossible fullness, a utopian ideal that can never be attained. 

In its pursuit of fulfillment, it constructs an imaginary order, a symbolic edifice where the impossible is posited as attainable. The political sphere, as a microcosm of this larger psychic drama, becomes a stage upon which this desire is projected, magnified, and ultimately frustrated.

In the political sphere, this void is projected onto the figure of the leader, a phantasmatic object destined to fill the impossible lack. The leader, in this construction, becomes a symptom of the social body, a manifestation of its collective desire, a desire predicated on a fundamental impossibility.

The leader, in this scenario, occupies a liminal space between the subject and the impossible. As the embodiment of the symbolic order, they are endowed with the power to articulate the desires of the many into a coherent narrative. Yet, this narrative, to be effective, must promise a fulfillment that is inherently unattainable. For desire is fundamentally a lack, a void that can never be completely filled.

The subject’s demand, distinct from desire, is for a concrete, attainable object. Yet, the political promise, in its essence, is a response to desire, not demand. It is a seductive illusion, a mirage in the desert of the real. The leader, then, becomes a master of the signifier, a manipulator of language who promises to satisfy the insatiable.

The leader, in this schema, becomes the object petit a, a contingent object imbued with the power to fulfill this impossible desire.

However, the leader, a symptom of the social structure, is inherently constrained by the Real. The Real, the irreducible kernel of existence, is a realm of impossibility, a traumatic limit that cannot be symbolized or mastered. Thus, the leader,as a symbolic figure, must necessarily lie. Their promises, seductive and alluring, are merely phantasmatic constructions designed to obscure the fundamental impossibility of fulfilling the subject’s desire.

In this context the leader becomes a purveyor of illusions, a master of the signifier. Their rhetoric, a carefully crafted tapestry of promises and aspirations, serves to obscure the fundamental impossibility of the desired object. The subject, in their infinite desire for completion, is seduced by this illusory promise, investing the leader with a quasi-divine status.

The sociopath, a subject profoundly alienated from the symbolic order, is particularly adept at inhabiting this liminal space between the subject’s desire and the Real’s intransigence. Lacking a stable ego, the sociopath is free to exploit the subject’s desire without the constraints of moral or ethical considerations, they are unburdened by the constraints of reality. The sociopathic leader, then, becomes a perfect embodiment of the political lie, a figure who promises the impossible while simultaneously reveling in the subject’s perpetual disillusionment.

Lacking genuine empathy, the sociopath is liberated from the constraints of the symbolic order. Their discourse is pure performance, a seamless weaving of signifiers designed to captivate the audience. The subject, in their desperate search for fulfillment, is readily seduced by this empty rhetoric.

The election of such figures is thus a testament to the fundamental disillusionment of the subject. Aware of the impossibility of their desires, the subject invests in the fantasy offered by the political lie. It is a perverse pact, a cynical arrangement wherein the subject sacrifices truth for the illusion of hope. The sociopath, in turn, exploits this vulnerability, becoming a symptom of a society that has lost touch with the real.

The question remains: can the subject be liberated from this cycle of desire and disillusionment? Can a politics based on truth and accountability emerge from the ruins of the fantasy? Or is the sociopathic leader an inevitable consequence of the subject’s fundamental alienation?

It is in this dialectic between the desiring subject and the deceitful leader that the pathology of contemporary politics is revealed. The system, predicated on the perpetual deferral of gratification, ensures the continued reproduction of power. The people, trapped in a cycle of hope and disillusionment, remain eternally complicit in their own subjugation.

The subject, in their infinite desire for completion, is complicit in this masquerade. The belief in the possibility of a perfect leader, a messianic figure who will eradicate suffering and injustice, is a testament to the subject’s refusal to accept the fundamental lack that constitutes their being. The election of sociopaths, therefore, is not merely a symptom of a failing political system but a reflection of the subject’s own desire for a master, a figure who can bear the burden of the Real and offer illusory satisfaction in its place.