Irish author Paul Lynch has been awarded this year’s Booker Prize, one of the most prestigious literary prizes in the English-speaking world, for his novel Prophet Song — and for good reason. With its harrowing vision of Ireland descending into tyranny, Lynch’s book perfectly captures the anxiety that characterizes our current political moment.
Not all critics were impressed. One reviewer described it as a “flapping turkey” of a book, criticizing Lynch for his sub-Orwellian themes and prose. Yet most reviews have been more favorable, with many lauding the book for reflecting mounting concerns about the future of parliamentary democracy in Western Europe and beyond. Lynch’s portrayal of a country sliding into authoritarian rule would certainly resonate with far-right leaders such as the triumphant Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and France’s Marine Le Pen.
Wilders’ stunning victory in the Dutch general election underscores the growing support for far-right parties across Europe. For more than two decades, he has been a vocal critic of the Netherlands’ immigration policies, frequently targeting the country’s Muslim community. His rise to prominence could be largely attributed to the blend of identity politics and simplistic solutions characteristic of today’s populist movements.
Proponents of liberal democracy have long worried about the influence of identity politics. While it is natural for individuals to identify with various familial, ethnic, religious and national groups, the principles of liberal democracy extend far beyond such affiliations. At their core is the recognition that managing a diverse, pluralistic society is a complicated task that requires more than just an electoral majority.
Throughout history, eminent political philosophers such as Cicero, Alexis de Tocqueville and Edmund Burke have emphasized the necessity of checks and balances on majority opinion in the interest of protecting minority rights — a pillar of liberal democracy. By contrast, today’s illiberal democracies might allow citizens to vote, but only after the ruling party has captured and hollowed out independent institutions and manipulated the system to guarantee that it would never lose.
This is not to say that identity does not matter. I am English and hold a British passport, but my great-grandfather was Irish. My faith is Roman Catholic, and politically, I identify as an old-fashioned, right-of-center Tory. I consider myself both a European and an internationalist. Most importantly, my family is the cornerstone of my personal identity.
Each aspect of my identity embodies values that I hold dear. I am a firm believer in tolerance and moderation, the rule of law and parliamentary democracy. I also sympathize with Pope Francis’ view that churches should not act as enforcers dictating how we live our lives. Instead, they should serve as hospitals, offering support and guidance to help us navigate life’s vicissitudes as best we could.
Moreover, I have always been skeptical of those offering simple solutions to complex problems. This skepticism is what drove me to oppose Brexit. Ultimately, the idea that British people could regain control and sovereignty over our national and individual futures by exiting the EU was revealed to be a delusion fueled by lies. Similarly, the promise that Brexit would restore the UK’s global stature has been thoroughly discredited. Instead of making it easier to control immigration, Britain’s departure from the EU has had the opposite effect.
Historically, immigration has often served as a catalyst for authoritarian populism. In the past, it led to the widespread persecution of Jewish communities and today, it is fueling hostility toward Muslim populations. In the Netherlands, as in Hungary and France, xenophobia and Islamophobia are the driving forces behind the rise of nationalist extremism and the erosion of liberal values.
The allure of populist authoritarianism grows when governments fail to deliver moderate and sensible responses to immigration or manage their borders effectively. Yet it becomes an even greater threat in periods of economic stress, particularly when democratic governments are unable to improve living standards.
Parliamentary democracies demand more sophisticated leadership than is necessary in authoritarian regimes. After all, democratic leaders must explain why complex issues cannot always be resolved by exploiting prejudices or resorting to cheap slogans. That is also why democracies, when they are well-run, tend to offer a higher quality of life than any alternative system of governance.
While it might appear easier for dictatorships like China to enforce their will, this approach often leads to diminished economic performance and reduced political legitimacy, as evidenced by the Chinese economy’s recent struggles. A surveillance state could crack down on dissent and restrict free speech, but such measures are unsustainable over the long term and tend to produce disastrous consequences.
In present-day China, the government actively suppresses any acknowledgment or remembrance of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, where hundreds if not thousands of students were killed. Despite these attempts to erase history, however, the memory of these events endures. As Tolstoy taught us, attempts to suppress dissent could sometimes transform a trickle of discontent into a tsunami that sweeps away authoritarian leaders and institutions.
Lynch’s Booker Prize-winning novel, with its unsettling premise, serves as a stark reminder of the chaos and hardship that political populism and authoritarianism invariably bring. If you are considering buying the book, however, you might want to delay reading it until after the holiday season. It is an important book, but not one that inspires light-heartedness and joy.
Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, is chancellor of the University of Oxford and the author of The Hong Kong Diaries.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
When Panama severed diplomatic relations with Taiwan and recognized China in 2017, Beijing achieved one of its most important diplomatic victories in Central America. However, nearly a decade later, Panama is demonstrating that diplomatic recognition does not necessarily eliminate Taiwan from a country’s political system. Panama and Taiwan had diplomatic relations for more than 100 years and the goodwill between the countries was displayed last week when Panama’s National Assembly established an interparliamentary exchange group with the Legislative Yuan. Forty-five of the assembly’s 71 lawmakers joined the group, representing more than 60 percent of the legislature. Its members include National Assembly President Shirley
If Taiwan falls, the true battle moves from the beaches into the concrete streets. Western analysts fixate on the invasion phase. They end wargames when missiles stop flying and submit policy papers after the fate of a beachhead is decided. This narrow focus ignores the grim reality of “the day after.” To address this blind spot, the Irregular Warfare Center (IWC) published a seminal study on March 5, 2026, titled China’s Way of Occupation: Implications for Taiwan. Authored by Jan K. Gleiman and others, the report analyzes Beijing’s actions in Tibet, Xinjiang (East Turkestan), and Hong Kong to expose a chilling playbook
Ten years ago, when I was an undergraduate at National Chung Hsing University (NCHU), there was a referendum on whether to remove a statue of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) from the campus. I wrote to the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) urging faculty, staff and students to vote for its removal. Eventually, the statue was removed from the university. Today, I am filled with emotion at seeing students at Soochow University democratically remove their own statue of Chiang, a figure of authoritarian rule, after it was on display for 48 years The timing is noteworthy, with the nine-in-one local elections approaching.
Beijing has for decades insisted that Taiwan is a matter to be settled between China and the US — or, preferably, by China alone. The strategic environment around Taiwan is making that increasingly difficult. The clearest evidence this week came not from Washington or Beijing, but from Tokyo. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on Tuesday met with US President Donald Trump before his summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Taiwan is expected to feature prominently in US-China talks, particularly as Beijing presses Washington over arms sales to Taipei. However, focusing only on what Trump might or might not concede misses the
RSS