Liberals around the world are daring to hope that there is a silver lining to the violent denouement of former US president Donald Trump’s tenure: Namely, that the inciter-in-chief’s ignominious exit from the political stage would chasten authoritarian populists elsewhere.
Unfortunately, their optimism is naive. Contrary to the cliche about a populist “wave” sweeping the world in the past few years, the rise and fall of populist leaders tends not to have significant transnational effects. Just as there is no honor among thieves, there was no solidarity among the supposed “Populist International” when it really mattered.
Trump chums like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and even Russian President Vladimir Putin ultimately acknowledged US President Joe Biden’s electoral victory.
More important, while Trump has been omnipresent, he has never been a typical populist. Right-wing populists in government tend to be more careful when it comes to maintaining a facade of legality and avoiding direct association with street violence.
Because the storming of the US Capitol on Jan. 6 was clearly a sign of desperation, it does not necessarily foreshadow the fate of populist (and radical right-wing) movements elsewhere.
The only real takeaway is that other populist kleptocrats might also resort to violent street mobilizations if they are ever truly cornered.
Liberals often claim to appreciate the world in all its complexity, whereas populists are great simplifiers. However, it is liberals who have pushed the highly simplistic narrative of a global populist wave, as if one need not consider particular national contexts very carefully.
According to this domino theory — which was enthusiastically embraced by populists themselves — Trump’s unexpected triumph in 2016 was supposed to trigger victories for right-wing populists in Austria, the Netherlands and France.
In fact, the opposite happened. In Austria, Norbert Hofer, former presidential candidate of the far-right Freedom Party, lost after adopting Trumpist antics that made him seem un-presidential.
In the Netherlands, far-right demagogue lawmaker Geert Wilders had Trump’s endorsement, but ultimately underperformed. In France, National Rally chairwoman Marine Le Pen’s loss to French President Emmanuel Macron in 2017 confirmed what had already become clear: Euro-Trumpism might not be such an effective strategy after all.
It should go without saying that what works in one political culture might not work in others.
Much also depends on the decisions of actors who are not populists themselves: In the US, Trump benefited from the collaboration of established conservative elites and the Republican Party. In fact, with the possible exception of Italy, no right-wing populist party has come to power in Western Europe or North America without conscious help from supposedly center-right actors (most of whom have never been held accountable for their role in mainstreaming the far right).
Moreover, even if the parties and governance styles associated with right-wing populism end up resembling each other, it does not follow that the rise of populists has the same root causes everywhere.
A much more likely explanation for the similarities is that populist leaders have selectively learned from one another.
For example, it is now standard populist practice to pressure pesky non-governmental organizations through ostensibly neutral legal changes.
In what some observers have called “autocratic legalism,” many right-wing populists in power studiously follow formal rules and practices to maintain a patina of neutrality and create plausible deniability for political acts.
Unlike Trump, these leaders understand that street violence by an uncontrollable movement could trigger a backlash within their own country and among international audiences.
Even where violence is de facto encouraged, as with the persecution of Muslims in India under the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, figures like Modi are careful not to go on record with statements that might be interpreted as direct incitement.
Similarly, the Hungarian government relentlessly traffics in racist and anti-Semitic tropes, but Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is careful never to go beyond loud dog whistles, lest he endanger his crucial relationships with German conservatives and the German car industry.
To be sure, if cornered, any populist might resort to Trump’s endgame methods: trying to coerce elites into committing fraud to prevent a transfer of power, or deploying right-wing extremists on the ground to intimidate lawmakers.
These desperate acts signaled Trump’s weakness, but it is important to note that most Republicans still did not disown Trump even when confronted with his blatant lawlessness.
Other right-wing populists might well take notice of this. The events in the US have shown that elites who are prepared to collaborate with authoritarians will tolerate quite a lot in the end. This ignominious precedent is especially likely to hold true in other countries where crony capitalism has implicated the business community in illegal behavior.
Populists cleverer than Trump smother democracy slowly through legal and constitutional machinations. Right-wing populist kleptocracies based on a fusion of big business and bigotry, in the words of the Indian journalist Kapil Komireddi, might not go down quietly.
Jan-Werner Mueller, professor of politics at Princeton University, is a fellow at the Berlin Institute of Advanced Study and the author of the forthcoming book Democracy Rules.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing