The world is dominated by several modes of government. Firstly, there are the broader names we are all familiar with: democracies, dictatorships, autocracies and monarchies. Yet secondly, they can rarely be summed up under these labels. For instance, each democracy has its own specific constitution while some may be democratic in theory but not in practice. A dictatorship is easier to identify and pigeon-hole although there are again varying types; those who are unapologetically so and those who dress themselves up as democratic in a system that is fixed for all control and power to sit with one person.
Many countries gradually wrestled the power away from a Monarch towards a more democratic system. Take England for instance. After holding John I to account with the Magna Carta in 1215 by forcing him to a take a step away from autocratic tyranny, the upper classes eventually clipped the Monarch’s wings completely by firstly executing Charles I in the 17th century and ruling with a Lord Protector for a decade before inviting Charles II back on their own terms. The French and Russians notoriously removed their tyrannical monarchs by force, only to replace them with similar figures in the shape of Napoleon Bonaparte and Josef Stalin respectively. Germany went from an autocracy to a democracy but then, seemingly reliant on strong and dictatorial rule, found itself led by Adolf Hitler after the brief flirtation.
Back to Stalin, he took the Communist ideal, presumably that a country should be centrally planned under a committee, and used it as a guise behind which lay a totalitarian dictatorship no longer recognisable as the Socialism Karl Marx had theorised but now as Stalinism. Current Russian leader Vladimir Putin is a convert.
One key message coming across from these examples amongst many, is that being ruled over by a dictator either as a Monarch, an autocrat, the cult of personality or a populist, is not sustainable, neither for the country in question or on the global stage.
Many dictators will put themselves ahead of the best interests of the people and at great cost. Robert Mugabe clung on to power as his countrymen lived in poverty. Adolf Hitler pursued a disastrous war that would eventually split Germany in half. Josef Stalin’s collectivisation plans in the Soviet Union resulted in famine killing millions of people. Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has remained in office despite the country having been in a civil war for nearly a decade and parts of it ravaged by Islamic State.
The issue clearly being that the dictator will be unaccountable and therefore, once they have risen to the top in their own country, their ego often means they are unwilling to let go.
In the modern era the dictator in the 20th century sense of the word is not so common. Yet, to move with the times, a different type of dictator has emerged. A neo-dictator if you will, created by necessity for the Cult of Personality and populists.
North Korea’s Kim Jong-un is a dictator in the old sense but, as a consequence, the country doesn’t healthily interact with the rest of the world and is in economic difficulties. He has sacrificed his country’s prosperity and well-being to stay in control while living in opulence. Opening up to the outside world would not only bring foreign interference but expose him to being scrutinised by his own people.
He’s a pragmatic dictator, a Monarch in many ways as he follows his father and grandfather. While undoubtedly this is problematic, especially for his closest neighbours, Japan and South Korea, his sphere of influence is thankfully limited.
It is the success of the neo-dictator emerging in bigger so-called democratic countries that has become a worrying trend in the 21st century. What we seem to have now is akin to Hitler’s brief time as Chancellor of Germany before he declared it a dictatorship. He got into office by convincing a democracy to put him there combined with a whole bag of dirty tricks.
Neo-dictators on the world stage have done similar and then, realising they must stay within the boundaries of democracy, have stopped short of doing what Hitler did but instead sought to change the rules of democracy or actually break them.
Jair Bolsonaro rose to being Brazil’s President amid accusations of social media propaganda and breaching campaign rules. Similar circumstances surrounded Donald Trump’s journey to the United States Presidency. Meanwhile in the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Boris Johnson illegally shut down Parliament in a staggering attempt to avoid scrutiny and cut a democracy off at the knees. In Russia, Putin has manipulated the “democratic” constitution to remain in power by taking two terms as President then two further terms as Prime Minister and de facto President. As a result he’s been in power for two decades.
What this betrays is corruption for self-advancement and self-preservation. Shutting down parliament was not in the interests of the British people nor was Putin’s game of musical chairs beneficial for global peace given the annexation of Crimea and Russian interference across the world.
Only a neo-dictator themselves or an extremist authoritarian could look back and proclaim despotic tyrannies to have been successful. Yet neo-dictators like Putin or Trump, by virtue of their own sociopathic egos, continue to harness power and rule in this fashion. The danger is that, while they have ascended to office under the banner of democracy, they are democratic in name only once there. Like those dictators of yesteryear, they do what they want and ignore rules or etiquette. If Donald Trump doesn’t like or want scrutiny, he shuts down those bringing it with the now infamous “fake news” line. When Boris Johnson wants to evade difficult questions about his shortcomings, he picks and chooses the venue and the audience or just doesn’t show up.
The concern is that while these figures have mixed results domestically and often garner loyal followings, on the world stage they are disruptive, mainly because they deploy the same tactics abroad as they do at home.
Take Donald Trump’s raison d’étre in the eyes of his electorate – to “make America great again”. He supposedly goes about this objective in a number of ways but one is to run down other countries. At various points he’s demeaned the aforementioned Kim Jong-un, insulted Canada and Mexico and refused to honour a progressive nuclear programme review deal the US agreed with Iran in 2015. Given that France, China, Germany, Russia and the UK were co-signatories of that treaty, his actions eschew unity.
Indeed, during the Corona virus pandemic, he frequently attacked the World Health Organisation, once more damaging international relations and rejecting collaboration.
Ironically this strikes a chord when one reflects on the European Union referendum in the UK. After displaying an opaque attitude towards the whole Leave or Remain debate, Boris Johnson surprisingly announced he would campaign to leave. What became obvious was that he’d reviewed the situation and decided he had nothing to gain by joining the Remain campaign where he would be overshadowed by then Prime Minister David Cameron, leaders of the opposition and other high ranking members of the government. Meanwhile on the Leave side, there were no big players beyond lifelong Brexit stalwart Nigel Farage who wasn’t a Member of Parliament and was considered by many to be a crackpot.
Johnson recognised that he was in a win/win situation. Lose the debate as the main Leave protagonist and become a hero to millions nonetheless. Or win it and potentially get into Downing Street. Either way, he would further his own political career and history has shown that was the outcome. It wasn’t born from an ideal but from ambition and a thirst for power. The UK came to a standstill both economically and legislatively due to uncertainty for nearly 4 years. Neglecting general government as it grappled with how to leave the EU. All because one man had needed a pet project to advance his career.
And like his American counterpart, with Britain on the brink of leaving a multi-state federation in the shape of the European Union, Johnson alienated his continental partners while depriving the UK of the benefits of belonging to such a club during a conflict or a pandemic. Like Trump, the collaboration has gone.
Putin acts in a defiant manner towards many other nations; the Salisbury poisonings, various airspace breaches, blowing airliners out of the sky and the annexation of Crimea are just a few examples of his rogue outlook. Again, this raises tensions and costs lives and Putin, without doubt, is a threat to global security. However, he does much of this not because of some global concern but because he needs to portray himself as a strong man to a population that respects such leadership. Every time the Russian air force wander into another jurisdiction, Putin is ultimately in campaign mode.
It is telling however that in this global oligarchy, the oligarchs often pay homage to each other, perhaps seeing a kindred spirit or genuinely admiring their temerity. Johnson and Trump have been effusive towards one another, while the latter has praised Putin regularly and Bolsonaro him. This apparent camaraderie is merely locker room talk.
There are other striking similarities between these men. They have carefully cultivated their personas. The contrived hair of Johnson and Trump hides bald spots, the blonde locks attempting to convey youth and vitality. Putin being filmed participating in martial arts and riding topless on horseback depict him as an outdoors, masculine type. All transparent paraphernalia which one would hope, in this day and age, the public would see through but sadly not.
And what makes it worse is that this dangerous combination of populism and self-preservation is spreading. Countries like Hungary and Poland have followed suite. More nations who are obsessed with immigration, don’t see climate change as a major issue and have questionable attitudes towards LGBTQ rights. All because their narcissist leaders would do anything to keep admiring themselves in the mirror.
Athon 