The Receding of Western Democracy and the Rise of Populist, Authoritarian Leadership

 The Receding of Western Democracy and the Rise of Populist, Authoritarian Leadership

 China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan)

March 18, 2018
 Translation of an Excerpt

Looking at the current world situation, among the big three, the US, China, and Russia, their leaders are either populist or authoritarian. Trump was elected with the help of right-wing populist, anti-establishment ballots. Putin has been in power since the year 2000 with prestige unopposed, and will at least serve till 2024. While Xi Jinping, after the CCP deleted the limits of terms for state president, will further erect an authoritarian system that may allow him to continue to lead, in a high-handed fashion, the development route of the country. Looking at Duterte of the Philippines, , Modi of India, and Erdogan of Turkey, they are all filled with personal colors of a strongman.

Confronting the current problems, the traditional democratic system has its limits, being unable to cope with them. There are two important factors behind this, one is the polarization in the distribution of wealth under globalization has caused a backlash of popular grievances. The free, laissez-faire economy that originally complemented democracy could, through the invisible hand of the market, create more benefits for the general public; however, economic globalization created massive wealth for the extreme minority at the high-end, while the wealth of average middle and lower strata have been compressed. The second is networking. The radical provocative rhetoric on the Internet could seize the attention and clicks, the rival combative articles easily engage in chaotic battles online, leading to radicalized bigotry and hatred. Deliberately propagating fake news and automatic dialogue formula have been better able to expand social divisions and affect election results.

This is also the reason that populist and authoritarian-type leaders have been able to rise as a result; people dissatisfied with the status quo hope for better governance and are eager for someone to solve problems for them. People not only want to directly elect the president, they want the president to revitalize the economy, bettering their purses. The political figures who can ignite the hopes of the voters will easily emerge from the crowd; people are even willing to give those political figures long-time in power. Rather than saying that the democratic system is inadequate, I would be better to say that governing capability and prosperity with an equitable distribution of wealth are more important. With democracy but poor livelihood for the masses, what future does a country have?

Attachment : none