By Muhammad Musa Khan
Stockholm Syndrome” may not be a widely discussed topic, but it is not entirely unknown. This phenomenon is linked to a bank robbery and hostage situation that took place in Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, half a century ago. In simple terms, “Stockholm Syndrome” refers to a situation where people held hostage or captured develop a kind of loyalty and emotional sympathy towards their captors.
In 1973, in Stockholm, Sweden, a notorious robber named Jan-Erik Olsson, who had recently been released on parole, entered the busy “Kreditbanken” armed and took four employees (three women and one man) hostage. He demanded the release of his friend, Clark Olofsson, from prison, negotiating with law enforcement for six days. During this period, the four bank employees were held captive in the bank vault. After six days, Olsson surrendered, and the hostages were freed. Surprisingly, when the case went to court, none of the hostages testified against their captor. Instead, they raised money to support his legal expenses.
One of the female hostages even became romantically involved with the kidnapper. Psychiatrist Dr. Frank Ochberg, who was appointed to analyze the Stockholm bank robbery and hostage situation, was the first to define this behavior as “Stockholm Syndrome” (a phenomenon of sympathy for the captor, but not a mental illness). Since then, this kind of behavior—sympathy or emotional connection with a captor—has been known as “Stockholm Syndrome.”
Swedish criminologist Nils Bejerot referred to it as “Norrmalmstorg Syndrome.” However, outside of Sweden, it became more popularly known as “Stockholm Syndrome.” Initially, the term was “Capture Bonding Syndrome.” Since 1973, the name “Stockholm Syndrome” has captured global headlines and has become a new topic of fascination in the world of psychology.
History provides other examples of similar situations. For instance, in 1974, Patty Hearst, a wealthy heiress in America, was kidnapped by a rural guerrilla group called the “Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA)” based in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Astonishingly, two months later, she was seen willingly participating in a robbery with her captors, fully aligning herself with them. This kind of scenario has even inspired movies. The popular Hollywood movie “King Kong” portrays a similar story. When Ann Darrow accidentally ends up in King Kong’s jungle domain, the forest king falls in love with her. Later, when Ann returns to the city, King Kong leaves the jungle and follows her into civilization, eventually dying in the process. Although it remains unclear if Ann ever reciprocated King Kong’s love, the story reflects a similar dynamic.
The question is—what is the real reason behind these strange emotions, akin to love? How can one develop such affection for someone who has kidnapped or threatened them? Even if it’s not normal, such incidents do occur. This syndrome is not a mental illness or disorder. It is a psychological state that hostages may experience, leading them to feel loyalty and emotional attachment to their captors. Psychologists believe that it stems from situational factors rather than pathological causes.
It is often said that the human mind is the most complex aspect of the human body. Like a flood, the mind can flow without regard for time, place, or direction. Imagine being kidnapped, with a ransom demanded, the money paid, and then being freed, yet you have no desire to return! This peculiar shift in mentality is precisely what defines “Stockholm Syndrome.”
In 1999, an FBI report reviewed over 1,200 hostage situations. Among the victims, only 8% exhibited signs of Stockholm Syndrome. This statistic indicates that Stockholm Syndrome is not a typical reaction, but rather a rare occurrence. This raises the question of the relationship between Stockholm Syndrome and authoritarian or corrupt rulers.
In essence, in authoritarian states, the ruling elite often manages to “hypnotize” certain groups of people. These may include those who benefit financially (legally or illegally) from the regime, those who are mentally swayed by the government’s “cosmetic development” and charming rhetoric, and those who, not supporting opposition groups, show “negative support” for the autocrat. Overall, the influence of Stockholm Syndrome is evident.
History is filled with instances where authoritarian leaders fell due to mass movements. Some notable examples include Italy’s Benito Mussolini, Germany’s Adolf Hitler, the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin, Libya’s Muammad Gaddafi, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Panama’s Manuel Noriega, Uganda’s Idi Amin, Chile’s President Augusto Pinochet, Cambodia’s Pol Pot, the Philippines’ Emilio Aguinaldo, and Myanmar’s military junta. Recently, Bangladesh’s former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has also been included in the annals of authoritarianism, being a dictator who, due to Stockholm Syndrome, still enjoyed support from a few.
However, history also offers examples of benevolent dictators. Figures like Turkey’s Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Yugoslavia’s Josip Tito, Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, and Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad, who led their countries forward with effective leadership.
On March 22, 2018, a report by the German research institute “Bertelsmann Stiftung” stated that five new countries had been classified as “authoritarian,” with Bangladesh among them. The other four countries were Lebanon, Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Uganda. Yemen, Syria, and Somalia were identified as having the worst situations. Observations from this German institute confirmed that the behavior, body language, vengeful rhetoric, suppression of opposition, favoritism towards corrupt individuals, disrespect towards respected figures, intolerance of dissenting opinions, and wastefulness of national resources demonstrated by former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina turned her into an authoritarian leader.
When we see her suggesting that Nobel Laureate Professor Yunus should be drowned in the Padma River, it becomes evident that she hasn’t moved away from the label given by the Supreme Court as a “Wrongheaded Person.” When she, as the Prime Minister, says, “If you push too much, I’ll cut off the electricity” or “I gave you mobile phones,” we understand that she is not a person with a normal mindset. When money is openly laundered from the country, reserves disappear from Bangladesh Bank, thousands of crores are looted from banks, hundreds of crores of corruption occur in mega projects, and bribery is considered a right—and she (Sheikh Hasina) supports such irregularities—it becomes clear that she is not concerned about the suffering of the people. She is focused on advancing her family, relatives, and party leaders. Her main plan appears to be making them wealthy.
Despite all these destructive activities, when we see a certain group of people still showing sympathy for Sheikh Hasina, wishing for her return, and believing that the country was better under her leadership, it is clear that they are influenced by “Stockholm Syndrome.” This is why Sheikh Hasina’s unusual behavior, disrespectful comments, tolerance of corruption, authoritarian conduct, extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearances of opponents, and other severe injustices go unnoticed by them.
They only worry about the rise of fundamentalism. They are not concerned about the economy. However, if the economy collapses, the entire country’s existence will be at risk. Moreover, it is unlikely that religious extremism will gain a strong foothold here, as the people of this country, while religious, are not fanatical. They do not like religion-based politics. Therefore, economic looting is far more dangerous to the country than fears of a religious resurgence.
We believe that Sheikh Hasina’s blind supporters need to be aware of “Stockholm Syndrome” and focus on identifying the real issues facing the country. This country belongs to all of us, and we need to think about poverty, unemployment, and other national problems. We cannot support activities that destroy the country. If we can eliminate corruption, money laundering, bank looting, wastefulness, misgovernance, disrespect, and irregularities from the country, significant development will be inevitable. Therefore, we must be vigilant against Stockholm Syndrome.
Author: Muhammad Musa Khan, Columnist & Social Worker