Political leadership in the 21st century
Mikuláš Dzurinda is President of the Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies
Populism, authoritarianism, and dictatorship are all significant features of political governance in the 21st century. We have observed the rise of these phenomena in some of the world’s most populated countries, including the US, but also in the countries of Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and also in Europe and the EU itself.
While after the 2019 European elections political groups to the right of the EPP occupied 19% of the seats, after this year’s elections their share has climbed to nearly 30%. We see how unpleasant the situation in France is, where president Macron has navigated himself between a rock and a hard place, sandwiched between Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon. German regional elections in Thuringia and Saxony have scared not only Chancellor Scholz, but also Europe as a whole. Last but not least, populism and authoritarianism are corroding also the countries of the Visegrád 4.
A superficial analyst would say that the root causes of this development stem from a number of unprecedented challenges we have faced over the last 15 years. However, a deeper dive into the issue will unveil the problem is more serious, more complex, and touches upon far more than just politics. It also touches upon social and societal areas.
Our societies have changed over the past 25 years. A significant number of people has become substantially richer than they were previously. These people enjoy increased prosperity. However, an equally significant or perhaps even larger number of people have not only failed to gain wealth but have also experienced a decline in their standard of living. Many of these people, even in developed countries, are fearful and anxious about the financial well-being of their children and future generations.
An indivisible part of the societal and socio-economic changes we have witnessed recently are the momentous technological developments of the internet and the emergence of social media. These platforms not only provide unprecedented access to information, but also make it easier for those better off to show their wealth and assets to the world. For individuals facing economic hardship or personal challenges, social media has become a new and powerful instrument to express their anger and frustration.
And how have members of either of these two groups behaved? It seems to me that in the past 25 years those who got richer also became arrogant. They began to preach to those who haven’t accessed that same wealth, to ‘teach’ them, but also prescribe them what is appropriate or even allowed to say and what is not. Political correctness was born.
Those who did not surrender were not only unfashionable, unprogressive, but also often made to feel unacceptable, overlooked, humiliated. Poor people, endangered and frustrated people, people losing their jobs all got the impression there was no one in politics looking after their interests.
I remember the first time I was surprised and disturbed by Western political and media elites. It was around 2005, after the coalition of the willing had deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003. I observed with concern how quickly those elites forgot the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, how they forgot about September 11 and the ideological, political, and material background of Islamic terrorism.
They all – suddenly – began searching for weapons of mass destruction. They searched even though they knew perfectly well Saddam had used these weapons against Iraq’s native Kurds in the past. When these weapons were not found, Saddam was no longer deemed to be at fault.
Instead, the problem was those who chose to punish all his atrocities and prevent them in the future: Bush, Blair, Aznar, … I have a similar feeling even in these days, when those same elites seem to have already forgotten about October 7, 2023, and constantly criticise Israel knowing very well Israel’s intention is to prevent Hamas from recovering and perpetrating similar or even worse atrocities again in the future.
In the space of merciless pressure from the elites, the soaring frustration of the overlooked and those being preached to inevitably grew. It grew, as did the alienation and mutual conflict between the haves and the have-nots. The widespread accessibility of social media only encouraged a widening abyss between them.
The birth of alternative media and heightened activism within conservative press outlets and portals was a natural consequence of this development. The polarisation of our societies and further boom of social media made it easier for demagogues, populists and extremists to seize opportunities in the public arena.
We need to promote an open and frank dialogue with people across the political spectrum, driven by the ability and will to listen to those who succeeded as well as to those who are struggling
Populism is dangerous. It is dangerous because irresponsible politicians and political charlatans raise high expectations. They ignore expertise, distort facts and reality, lure people with unrealistic promises. When they come to power, they fail. They fail because they are not capable of exercising in office. The politics of overpromising and underdelivering leads to an even greater polarisation of the population and – ultimately – to calls for a ‘firm hand’.
And that’s where the authoritarian leader comes in. First, he eliminates domestic opposition. Then he searches for a suitable, catchy external enemy. In our central European and post-communist space, the best targets to serve as the ‘catchy’ enemies are George Soros and ‘bad’ Brussels.
The major problem is that these elements – populists and autocrats – are not hitting a wall, a barrier that would be resilient enough. Former Slovak President Zuzana Čaputová gave an interview recently, where she gave an interesting remark: “Let’s try to apprehend that we are invited to a permanent conflict by someone, so let’s stay away from it.”
I mean, this is a recipe to initiate the turnaround we need, not only in Europe, but also in the US. We need to promote an open and frank dialogue with people across the political spectrum, driven by the ability and will to listen to those who succeeded as well as to those who are struggling.
For politicians in power there is only one recipe for how to prevent or face populism: to promote the necessary reforms and carry out the necessary changes. Reforms which serve not only capital markets but also the lower-middle class and, allow me to say, ordinary people – the teachers, nurses, entrepreneurs, people that are suffering – and, of course, the economy as a whole.
Such political leaders, competent, moral, and courageous, have begun to disappear. As the legendary European politician Jean Claude Juncker once observed: “We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.”
The entity that plays an immensely serious role in this process is the media. The media should give up the habit of prescribing to political leaders what to do. It should stop treating politicians as its rivals who need to be beaten or sent to jail. Journalists as well as politicians should leave their bubbles and not be afraid to lead a partner dialogue with people from other bubbles.
Because these days we all belong to some bubble. To some clan. It’s not only unhealthy, but also dangerous. Because the ‘divide et impera’ approach has always served rulers, emperors, dictators, but not those who wanted to serve their nation, their community.
The biggest, key advantage of democracy over autocracy or dictatorship is freedom. Democracy promotes freedom, dictatorship denies it. Democracy is better and gives more perspective, because it allows a different opinion. Democracy enables opposition, hence it gives room to an alternative.
If Putin were to allow different views around him, he would not have unleashed such madness. And if he had already unleashed it, he would be capable of correction after the first failure. Putin will not accept a different opinion, and that is why he will lose.
The imperative of all the world’s democrats is to defend, maintain and cultivate freedom. In thought, expression, and action. Because freedom leads to courage. The challenges of the 21st century call not only for competent, but also for courageous, responsible, value-driven leaders.
I will paraphrase Juncker: I don’t know at once or immediately how to weaken the populists and autocrats. However, I know if we stay true to freedom, in the end we will succeed.
This article is based on a speech delivered at 2024 Budapest Forum, 25 September 2024.
