What do you think?
Rate this book
The Age of the Strongman: How the Cult of the Leader Threatens Democracy around the World
In The Age of the Strongman, Gideon Rachman finds global coherence in the chaos of the new nationalism, leadership cults and hostility to liberal democracy.
We are in a new era: authoritarian leaders have become a central feature of global politics. Since 2000, self-styled strongmen have risen to power in capitals as diverse as Moscow, Beijing, Delhi, Brasilia, Budapest, Ankara, Riyadh and Washington.
These leaders are nationalists and social conservatives, with little tolerance for minorities, dissent or the interests of foreigners. At home, they claim to be standing up for ordinary people against globalist elites; abroad, they posture as the embodiments of their nations. And everywhere they go, they encourage a cult of personality. What's more, these leaders are not just operating in authoritarian political systems but have begun to emerge in the heartlands of liberal democracy.
While in the West the EU referendum and the election of Donald Trump in 2016 mark a watershed, the new era started at the beginning of the new millennium, when Vladimir Putin took power in Russia. How and why did this new style of strongman leadership arrive? How likely is it to lead the world into war or economic collapse? And what liberal forces are in place not only to keep these strongmen in check but to reverse the trend?
From Trump, Putin and Bolsonaro to Erdogan, Xi and Modi, Gideon Rachman pays full attention to the strongman phenomenon around the world and uncovers the complex and often surprising interaction between these leaders. Whilst others have tried to understand the emergence of these new leaders individually, The Age of the Strongman provides the first truly global treatment of the new nationalism, underpinned by an exceptional level of access to key actors in this drama: Gideon Rachman has been in the same room with most of these strongmen and reported from their countries over a long journalistic career.
We are in a new era: authoritarian leaders have become a central feature of global politics. Since 2000, self-styled strongmen have risen to power in capitals as diverse as Moscow, Beijing, Delhi, Brasilia, Budapest, Ankara, Riyadh and Washington.
These leaders are nationalists and social conservatives, with little tolerance for minorities, dissent or the interests of foreigners. At home, they claim to be standing up for ordinary people against globalist elites; abroad, they posture as the embodiments of their nations. And everywhere they go, they encourage a cult of personality. What's more, these leaders are not just operating in authoritarian political systems but have begun to emerge in the heartlands of liberal democracy.
While in the West the EU referendum and the election of Donald Trump in 2016 mark a watershed, the new era started at the beginning of the new millennium, when Vladimir Putin took power in Russia. How and why did this new style of strongman leadership arrive? How likely is it to lead the world into war or economic collapse? And what liberal forces are in place not only to keep these strongmen in check but to reverse the trend?
From Trump, Putin and Bolsonaro to Erdogan, Xi and Modi, Gideon Rachman pays full attention to the strongman phenomenon around the world and uncovers the complex and often surprising interaction between these leaders. Whilst others have tried to understand the emergence of these new leaders individually, The Age of the Strongman provides the first truly global treatment of the new nationalism, underpinned by an exceptional level of access to key actors in this drama: Gideon Rachman has been in the same room with most of these strongmen and reported from their countries over a long journalistic career.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published April 7, 2022
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 133 reviews
March 15, 2023
A decent exploration of "Strongman" leaders, but lacking new insights
The book is a compilation of leader profiles, exploring a type of leader the author calls the "Strongman" who appeals to the grievances of ordinary people by presenting themselves as a strong, charismatic figure who will protect them from external threats and restore order to society. However, the author fails to offer any new insights beyond high-level descriptions and personal accounts from interviews with these leaders. While the book may serve as an introduction for those interested in learning more about these leaders, it does not provide a background on how to recognize the danger that strongman populists pose to democratic values, nor does it offer guidance on how to protect and strengthen democratic institutions and norms.
Read in Dutch
The book is a compilation of leader profiles, exploring a type of leader the author calls the "Strongman" who appeals to the grievances of ordinary people by presenting themselves as a strong, charismatic figure who will protect them from external threats and restore order to society. However, the author fails to offer any new insights beyond high-level descriptions and personal accounts from interviews with these leaders. While the book may serve as an introduction for those interested in learning more about these leaders, it does not provide a background on how to recognize the danger that strongman populists pose to democratic values, nor does it offer guidance on how to protect and strengthen democratic institutions and norms.
Read in Dutch
November 14, 2023
"As dificuldades de Boris Johnson correspondem a um padrão que podemos encontrar em muitos nacionalistas populistas que chegaram ao poder por todo o mundo durante a última década. Líderes como Erdogan, Modi, Trump, Bolsonaro, Johnson e Duterte provaram muitas vezes serem melhores a fazer campanha do que gerir um país. São soberbos na construção de um grupo de seguidores pessoais, mas não possuem as competências tecnocráticas e a paciência para governar de forma eficaz.
Estas falhas sugerem que o estilo de governo do homem-forte pode conter as sementes da sua própria destruição. E isso levanta uma pergunta crucial: o governo do homem-forte é ainda a tendência crescente em termos de paradigma mundial, ou já terá alcançado o topo?"
Páginas 291 e 292
Estas falhas sugerem que o estilo de governo do homem-forte pode conter as sementes da sua própria destruição. E isso levanta uma pergunta crucial: o governo do homem-forte é ainda a tendência crescente em termos de paradigma mundial, ou já terá alcançado o topo?"
Páginas 291 e 292
April 12, 2022
Huge disappointment!
Mr Rachman is an excellent writer (correspondent Financial Times)
but his profiles of world leaders...the "Strongmen"
are just a re-hash of what we already know!
#MovingOn...nothing new to see here!
Mr Rachman is an excellent writer (correspondent Financial Times)
but his profiles of world leaders...the "Strongmen"
are just a re-hash of what we already know!
#MovingOn...nothing new to see here!
April 12, 2022
A solid analysis of how the strongman style of leadership is prevalent in the emerging world order. Award-winning journalist Gideon Rochman traces the roots of this phenomenon all the way to the dawn of the 21st century when Russian President Vladimir Putin rose to power and became the harbinger of a global trend. Ever since, strongmen leaders have popped up all over the world, from Asia to Latin America to Africa to Europe to even the United States.
Riding on a wave of resurgent nationalism, populist and authoritarian leaders have established a cult of personality and surrounded themselves with acolytes while consolidating power by exploiting public resentment and overriding democratic institutions. They are “in revolt with the liberal consensus that reigns supreme since 1989” and have cultivated a personalized style of leadership bolstered by a cult of personality, macho posturing and rhetoric, hostility to liberalism, contempt for the media and political correctness, traditionalist views, xenophobia, intimidation of opponents, conspiracy theories, and nostalgia of a ‘glorious’ past.
The author highlights how Trump’s success in the 2016 US Presidential Elections legitimized the strongman style. Chinese President Xi Jinping is yet another leader who has solidified strongman rule. Regarded as China's most powerful since Mao Zedong, Xi’s cult of personality is so massive that he has propagated his own political ideology across the emerging superpower. Other strongman leaders discussed in the book include Orban, Kaczyński, Modi, Netanyahu, MbS, Bolsonaro, Duterte, AMLO, Abiy Ahmed, Erdogan, among others — the surprising addition to the list being British PM Boris Johnson.
The popularity of such leaders in politics has signaled a political shift away from liberal internationalism and towards strongman populism. Though Western nationalism is driven by rising expectations and its Asian counterpart is driven by disappointed hopes, “the political outcome is surprisingly similar — a call to make the country great again.”
What’s interesting is that strongman leadership is not confined to autocratic states like China and Saudi Arabia alone. It’s also prevalent across semi-democratic and democratic states. Most importantly, this phenomenon has resonated with both the left and the right. In the words of the author, “The similarity between left and right populists is that they all claim to be representing the people against the globalist elite and they all promise simple solutions to complex problems.”
As the author astutely notes, the pattern behind the emergence of strongmen is overwhelmingly the same:
• A charismatic leader rises through the ranks with a radical vision.
• The leader is initially hailed by the West as a liberal reformer.
• He becomes increasingly authoritarian and falls from grace.
• Those who once embraced him denounce him as an autocrat.
Liberal internationalist leaders are projected as the antithesis to the ‘tough guy’ image of strongmen — like Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, the latter who has now slightly moved rightward. The strongman factor has shaped the global political climate, causing democratic recession. The author observes that the battle between China and the US, between autocracy and democracy, will define the 21st century.
Furthermore, the book sheds light on billionaire philanthropist George Soros, who has become the ubiquitous scapegoat of strongman leaders across the world for everything that goes wrong, and his philosophy of an open society. In stark contrast, political theorist and Nazi sympathizer Carl Schmitt’s concept of an absolute enemy is also discussed.
Gideon Rachman warns against dictator rule since it’s “an inherently flawed and unstable form of government.” He rightfully concludes by suggesting that “durable political systems ultimately rely on institutions, not individuals. And successful societies are built on rules rather than charismatic leadership.” According to his prediction, strongman governments will “ultimately collapse in China and other places.”
Only time will tell whether the age of the strongman will continue gaining prominence, or whether it will be consigned to the ash heap of history.
Riding on a wave of resurgent nationalism, populist and authoritarian leaders have established a cult of personality and surrounded themselves with acolytes while consolidating power by exploiting public resentment and overriding democratic institutions. They are “in revolt with the liberal consensus that reigns supreme since 1989” and have cultivated a personalized style of leadership bolstered by a cult of personality, macho posturing and rhetoric, hostility to liberalism, contempt for the media and political correctness, traditionalist views, xenophobia, intimidation of opponents, conspiracy theories, and nostalgia of a ‘glorious’ past.
The author highlights how Trump’s success in the 2016 US Presidential Elections legitimized the strongman style. Chinese President Xi Jinping is yet another leader who has solidified strongman rule. Regarded as China's most powerful since Mao Zedong, Xi’s cult of personality is so massive that he has propagated his own political ideology across the emerging superpower. Other strongman leaders discussed in the book include Orban, Kaczyński, Modi, Netanyahu, MbS, Bolsonaro, Duterte, AMLO, Abiy Ahmed, Erdogan, among others — the surprising addition to the list being British PM Boris Johnson.
The popularity of such leaders in politics has signaled a political shift away from liberal internationalism and towards strongman populism. Though Western nationalism is driven by rising expectations and its Asian counterpart is driven by disappointed hopes, “the political outcome is surprisingly similar — a call to make the country great again.”
What’s interesting is that strongman leadership is not confined to autocratic states like China and Saudi Arabia alone. It’s also prevalent across semi-democratic and democratic states. Most importantly, this phenomenon has resonated with both the left and the right. In the words of the author, “The similarity between left and right populists is that they all claim to be representing the people against the globalist elite and they all promise simple solutions to complex problems.”
As the author astutely notes, the pattern behind the emergence of strongmen is overwhelmingly the same:
• A charismatic leader rises through the ranks with a radical vision.
• The leader is initially hailed by the West as a liberal reformer.
• He becomes increasingly authoritarian and falls from grace.
• Those who once embraced him denounce him as an autocrat.
Liberal internationalist leaders are projected as the antithesis to the ‘tough guy’ image of strongmen — like Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, the latter who has now slightly moved rightward. The strongman factor has shaped the global political climate, causing democratic recession. The author observes that the battle between China and the US, between autocracy and democracy, will define the 21st century.
Furthermore, the book sheds light on billionaire philanthropist George Soros, who has become the ubiquitous scapegoat of strongman leaders across the world for everything that goes wrong, and his philosophy of an open society. In stark contrast, political theorist and Nazi sympathizer Carl Schmitt’s concept of an absolute enemy is also discussed.
Gideon Rachman warns against dictator rule since it’s “an inherently flawed and unstable form of government.” He rightfully concludes by suggesting that “durable political systems ultimately rely on institutions, not individuals. And successful societies are built on rules rather than charismatic leadership.” According to his prediction, strongman governments will “ultimately collapse in China and other places.”
Only time will tell whether the age of the strongman will continue gaining prominence, or whether it will be consigned to the ash heap of history.
January 12, 2023
Educational, thought-provoking - and expectedly depressing.
June 23, 2022
Pivotal book if you want to understand the next ideological/political divide in the world between the open society and the legacy form of closed government. The open society initiative led by George Soros argues that no philosophy or ideology is the final arbiter of truth, and that societies can only flourish when they allow for democratic governance, freedom of expression, and respect for individual rights. As opposed to closed governments led by Putin and President Xi of China who are strong men who are openly opposed to grant power to their own people to make decisions and employ propaganda to keep their people in control.
April 28, 2022
Released just a couple of days after Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century, Rachman's book gives a much better and more objective overview of a phenomenon of an autocrat rise in the early 21st century.
Although I'm not totally agree on including some personalities to this book's list of the strongman, I really like the solid analysis on the ideological bases behind each character and also some personal experience.
Although I'm not totally agree on including some personalities to this book's list of the strongman, I really like the solid analysis on the ideological bases behind each character and also some personal experience.
May 15, 2022
Helpful as a primer but just doesn't really scratch the itch.
August 31, 2022
I know it’s inappropriate to complain too much about people who are mentally handicapped but Rachman has truly reached new levels of isolation from reality. He calls AMLO an authoritarian. The first time I saw an American journalist call AMLO an authoritarian was in relation to his staunch support for freedom of the press. Some Biden-supporting liberal was saying that freedom of the press allows for various opinions to flourish, which led to people like Trump. Thus ‘true freedom of the press’ requires the government arresting journalists who don’t accept the “shared realities” needed for plurality and democracy. AMLO opposed limitations on the press and called for the release of Assange, for example, therefore, he is authoritarian. How authoritarian!
Chavez, AMLO, Bolsonaro, Boris Johnson. All are named as “strongmen” United by the fact that they support “simple solutions to complex problems”. Curiously enough, Rachman is not able to name examples. When he does give examples (of other things) he does not give a source. Curious. It is almost as if he’s making it up as he goes along. Chavez called himself a Trotskyist and publicly went through works of social and historical theory. I challenge anyone to go through Results and Prospects and say it provides simple answers to complicated questions. Boris Johnson’ simple solution to a complex problem was Brexit. Rachman doesn’t prove Johnson thought Brexit would solve everything, maybe he did claim that. Being in favour of Brexit is inherently bad for Rachman therefore Johnson is a simpleton.
Rachman doesn’t prove or source his claims. He tweaks the evidence where it fits his narrative. He simplifies everything to a good and evil binary. Putin, Orban, Bolsonaro, Lula de Silva, AMLO, Castro, Corbyn, Trump, Modi and Chavez are all United by being simpletons or charlatans who present things in a simplified good and evil binary where one easy solution solves everything. The fact that Putin, Chavez and Castro had/have exceedingly complicated worldviews. Doesn’t matter. Just prove your point by asserting it!
I don’t want to go through everything wrong with this book. Use a little critical thinking. This book will quickly fall apart. As will any other book that consists so much of mere opinion.
Chavez, AMLO, Bolsonaro, Boris Johnson. All are named as “strongmen” United by the fact that they support “simple solutions to complex problems”. Curiously enough, Rachman is not able to name examples. When he does give examples (of other things) he does not give a source. Curious. It is almost as if he’s making it up as he goes along. Chavez called himself a Trotskyist and publicly went through works of social and historical theory. I challenge anyone to go through Results and Prospects and say it provides simple answers to complicated questions. Boris Johnson’ simple solution to a complex problem was Brexit. Rachman doesn’t prove Johnson thought Brexit would solve everything, maybe he did claim that. Being in favour of Brexit is inherently bad for Rachman therefore Johnson is a simpleton.
Rachman doesn’t prove or source his claims. He tweaks the evidence where it fits his narrative. He simplifies everything to a good and evil binary. Putin, Orban, Bolsonaro, Lula de Silva, AMLO, Castro, Corbyn, Trump, Modi and Chavez are all United by being simpletons or charlatans who present things in a simplified good and evil binary where one easy solution solves everything. The fact that Putin, Chavez and Castro had/have exceedingly complicated worldviews. Doesn’t matter. Just prove your point by asserting it!
I don’t want to go through everything wrong with this book. Use a little critical thinking. This book will quickly fall apart. As will any other book that consists so much of mere opinion.
January 4, 2024
A democratic recession is deepening, and will likely turn into a depression.
Common characteristics of a strongman.
1. Creation of a personality cult (Putin riding bare-chested on a horse or Johnson being deliberately scruffy.)
2. Contempt for the rule of law (often employing family members/friends)
3. Claim to represent the real people against the elites.
4. Adopt policies/beliefs driven by fear and nationalism.
5. Populists who offer “simplism” solutions.
6. Periods of no education (President Xi missing 10 years while in hiding).
7. Personal adulthood volatility of their own making (Johnson and Trump’s many marriages or Modi not marrying and being celibate).
8. Idolise and mimic historical figures (Johnson writing in his Churchill biography “Churchill threw his shirt on a horse called Anti-Nazi – and it paid off” and deciding to support Brexit) or Trump’s obsession with low tax Regan and lawless Nixon.
9. Fear of losing power in the knowledge that if they resign they may either be imprisoned by their successor, or plunge their country into crisis with civil war.
There is however hope. For strongman politics to continue – it must be successful or face being overthrown or outvoted. Looking at Mexican and Brazilian politics (which tends to mimic American politics) both countries are poorer for electing their strongman leaders, and will hopefully be outvoted or overthrown. France, looking at the mess of Brexit Britain and Russian, decided not to choose Le-Pen.
Common characteristics of a strongman.
1. Creation of a personality cult (Putin riding bare-chested on a horse or Johnson being deliberately scruffy.)
2. Contempt for the rule of law (often employing family members/friends)
3. Claim to represent the real people against the elites.
4. Adopt policies/beliefs driven by fear and nationalism.
5. Populists who offer “simplism” solutions.
6. Periods of no education (President Xi missing 10 years while in hiding).
7. Personal adulthood volatility of their own making (Johnson and Trump’s many marriages or Modi not marrying and being celibate).
8. Idolise and mimic historical figures (Johnson writing in his Churchill biography “Churchill threw his shirt on a horse called Anti-Nazi – and it paid off” and deciding to support Brexit) or Trump’s obsession with low tax Regan and lawless Nixon.
9. Fear of losing power in the knowledge that if they resign they may either be imprisoned by their successor, or plunge their country into crisis with civil war.
There is however hope. For strongman politics to continue – it must be successful or face being overthrown or outvoted. Looking at Mexican and Brazilian politics (which tends to mimic American politics) both countries are poorer for electing their strongman leaders, and will hopefully be outvoted or overthrown. France, looking at the mess of Brexit Britain and Russian, decided not to choose Le-Pen.
May 9, 2022
Nothing special about this book. Just reads like a rote history. Doesn’t go into depth at all and just repeats a lot of the facts and claims
February 21, 2023
Without a doubt, an insightful read for reasons maybe the author did not intend. This book showcases an era of authoritarian leaders across the globe from Russia, Turkey, Hungry, Philippines, U.S, Brazil, UK, etc. Each leader from each corner of the globe presents a remarkably similar playbook of instructions to sway voters, you can even call it an algorithm. It simply goes like this.
- Present yourself as an outsider (even though most of these leaders are in fact insiders)
- Question institutions
- Question elites or conventional wisdom by creating doubt
- Present the political debate as working class/common man vs a shadowy elite
- Call out corruption and present yourself as the solution
- Take extremely complex problems and present them in a simplified manner
- Once the issue is simplified, present the solution as something incredibly simple
- Then attack the current political status quo as being so corrupt as to be the reason why this {insert problem here} exists because the solution is so simple.
- Then state the issue as overly educated bureaucrats stifling progress and present the solution as giving the leader more power so they can end the corruption. So the leader can "Take back your country" from the corrupt elite.
- Everywhere you go, repeat these talking points
- Once elected peel back citizens rights, give yourself power past your term
This is pretty much it, with variations here and there. The main theme is to take real issues that exist and subvert them into a political ladder for power. The question I have is the playbook is so similar and so persuasive, I am wondering how much of this plain human psychology, giving into an evolutionary weakness and how much do economic conditions factor into the picture? Like if we could conveniently separate the two and figure out what percentage each category falls into. My guess is that they're intertwined in a way which makes it impossible to find out but I am hoping one day someone figures it out.
The strongman playbook is so similar its concerning, yet I also acknowledge there are bits and pieces of truth in their statements. These truths are largely ignored by the elite political class. Often times dusted off as conspiratorial. This is the issue I have with this book because the author is apart of this political class and unknowingly makes statements (Which I will address later on) that demonstrate his inability to fully understand the problem or desire to ignore the larger issue which is the current political order has lead to increasing inequalities which in turn has changed how institutions are perceived, including media publications. The political class thinks, "If we get rid of the strongman. The issues will subside". I am sorry, this is naive. The strongman wielded the anger of the citizens in a powerful and manipulative way but the bigger question is why do a large portion of the populous believe the governing body is corrupt? Why is there so much disdain for media elites, and elites in general from the majority of the populous? What are the conditions for this type of view to proliferate? This is a much more interesting question because we start to attack the root of the issue and its never discussed on media channels or in elites circles like Davos or various forums because a partial subset or majority of blame would inevitably reach back to them.
It becomes easier to sweep these claims under the rug and blame everything on lack of scientific thinking or racism. Without a doubt these are issues and they do exist. The author explains away all economic gripe with racism and lack of scientific thinking and what stands out to me. The author is largely representative of the political class, I have read dozens of books of democracies and they all share the same view point as the author. This is very concerning to me, it represents a mono culture pretending to be an independent body of thought rather than a biased press unable to come to grips with their failures.
The author talks about the skepticism of experts by the public and rejection of science. Like I said, the rejection of science is troubling but these need to be properly categorized. Media elites have been shouting from the top of their lungs, "We need to listen to the experts!". A very famous and viral cartoon with a drawing of a man rousing the passengers stating "These smug pilots have lost touch with regular passengers like us. Who thinks I should fly the plane?".
This is a red herring, a pilot gets direct feedback from his or her environment, meaning you don't meet bad pilots because they would be dead. Not to mention, no one thinks they can just magically learn to fly a plane better than a pilot, questioning "expert" is about a deeper problem. Where the "expert" in question does not receive feedback from their position, they have no risk attached to their decision making. Not only that, they can be swayed by grants, donations or lucrative positions. I can give a couple examples because I am assuming you're very skeptical of my claims, no worries. I expect you to be.
Example #1
When people started to question where the virus came from, gain of function researchers (gain of function is when virologists make a disease more dangerous as a means to test it and learn from the disease. It was banned in the U.S by Obama and later reinstalled by Trump through lobbying). The experts stated that this was not created in a lab and many would label you as conspiracy theorists if you did so to the point where you were banned from social media outlets if you simply said
"Hmmm there is a coronavirus laboratory in exactly the location where the virus originated, not to mention multiple researches from the lab reported as being sick right before the virus was discovered"
Privately researchers were saying the same thing, that the virus is too transmissible to be derived naturally. Publicly stating the opposite because if the world finds out the virus was leaked accidentally by a lab. There entire field is gone and no funding would exist.
Yet we're still treated as idiots, "We'll never know where the virus originated from". This is a case of the experts having a deep conflict of interest.
Example #2
Wall street or WS (because I am lazy right now) has perfected the ability to make risk asymmetric. By taking risk off of themselves and placing it on the taxpayer. Many have and will continue to lobby for deregulation and open their accounts for subsidies when they blow up. Making vast quantities of money in the short term and leaving the bill for the tax payers when their financial instrument's blow up after years of occurring reckless risks. This is also an expert problem because many avoid actually addressing the cause of the problem by doing an intellectual gymnastic argument shifting themselves from the blame and putting onto the system as a whole.
Example #3
National security experts, these experts are all over corporate media in the U.S. They advocate for aggressive tactics and war where their children or love ones will never be on the front lines. This type of expert, will be paid handsomely by defense contractors and then go on news outlets and advocate for blood to be spilled just not their blood or anyone else they're related to. Lets not forget advocates for the Iraq war like John Bolton and Bill Kristol. Will never see the battle field but will confidently and psychopathically advocate for the war still even after it being labeled as a unanimous disaster from both parties, voters, virtually everyone around the world.
We cannot bucket all experts together and act like we should always listen to everything that comes out of their mouths. Experts like humans can be bought, just like scientist's. I listen to good arguments presented with evidence that can be falsifiable not experts. If that makes me some sort of loon or conspiracy theorist, I will happily accept that label rather than listen to "authoritative" individuals. This is something the author does across the book, preach about listening to experts as if the political class has not been largely bought off through think thanks, grants or cushy board jobs they have no expertise to be on other than slavishly carrying water for the status quo. Go look on every major news outlet right now, tell me who is aggressively asking for a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine? War mongers have successfully manipulated leftists into a sympathy war support at the expense of huge tail risks for the war. Not to mention, 100 billion has been spent already. Think about where that money goes? It goes into "defense" manufactures accounts. These views would automatically have me labeled as some Kremlin puppet by the political class despite wanting peace and to end the tail risks of the war spinning off.
This goes to the heart of todays media political class, authors like this are much better at pointing out the flaws in the other side without asking the flaws within themselves.
I think this is an important book both for the rise of the strongman but also the authors commentary is unknowingly reveling. You get to see why these strongman came into power especially with the authors subtle comments on what he thinks people should do.
Three stars.
- Present yourself as an outsider (even though most of these leaders are in fact insiders)
- Question institutions
- Question elites or conventional wisdom by creating doubt
- Present the political debate as working class/common man vs a shadowy elite
- Call out corruption and present yourself as the solution
- Take extremely complex problems and present them in a simplified manner
- Once the issue is simplified, present the solution as something incredibly simple
- Then attack the current political status quo as being so corrupt as to be the reason why this {insert problem here} exists because the solution is so simple.
- Then state the issue as overly educated bureaucrats stifling progress and present the solution as giving the leader more power so they can end the corruption. So the leader can "Take back your country" from the corrupt elite.
- Everywhere you go, repeat these talking points
- Once elected peel back citizens rights, give yourself power past your term
This is pretty much it, with variations here and there. The main theme is to take real issues that exist and subvert them into a political ladder for power. The question I have is the playbook is so similar and so persuasive, I am wondering how much of this plain human psychology, giving into an evolutionary weakness and how much do economic conditions factor into the picture? Like if we could conveniently separate the two and figure out what percentage each category falls into. My guess is that they're intertwined in a way which makes it impossible to find out but I am hoping one day someone figures it out.
The strongman playbook is so similar its concerning, yet I also acknowledge there are bits and pieces of truth in their statements. These truths are largely ignored by the elite political class. Often times dusted off as conspiratorial. This is the issue I have with this book because the author is apart of this political class and unknowingly makes statements (Which I will address later on) that demonstrate his inability to fully understand the problem or desire to ignore the larger issue which is the current political order has lead to increasing inequalities which in turn has changed how institutions are perceived, including media publications. The political class thinks, "If we get rid of the strongman. The issues will subside". I am sorry, this is naive. The strongman wielded the anger of the citizens in a powerful and manipulative way but the bigger question is why do a large portion of the populous believe the governing body is corrupt? Why is there so much disdain for media elites, and elites in general from the majority of the populous? What are the conditions for this type of view to proliferate? This is a much more interesting question because we start to attack the root of the issue and its never discussed on media channels or in elites circles like Davos or various forums because a partial subset or majority of blame would inevitably reach back to them.
It becomes easier to sweep these claims under the rug and blame everything on lack of scientific thinking or racism. Without a doubt these are issues and they do exist. The author explains away all economic gripe with racism and lack of scientific thinking and what stands out to me. The author is largely representative of the political class, I have read dozens of books of democracies and they all share the same view point as the author. This is very concerning to me, it represents a mono culture pretending to be an independent body of thought rather than a biased press unable to come to grips with their failures.
The author talks about the skepticism of experts by the public and rejection of science. Like I said, the rejection of science is troubling but these need to be properly categorized. Media elites have been shouting from the top of their lungs, "We need to listen to the experts!". A very famous and viral cartoon with a drawing of a man rousing the passengers stating "These smug pilots have lost touch with regular passengers like us. Who thinks I should fly the plane?".
This is a red herring, a pilot gets direct feedback from his or her environment, meaning you don't meet bad pilots because they would be dead. Not to mention, no one thinks they can just magically learn to fly a plane better than a pilot, questioning "expert" is about a deeper problem. Where the "expert" in question does not receive feedback from their position, they have no risk attached to their decision making. Not only that, they can be swayed by grants, donations or lucrative positions. I can give a couple examples because I am assuming you're very skeptical of my claims, no worries. I expect you to be.
Example #1
When people started to question where the virus came from, gain of function researchers (gain of function is when virologists make a disease more dangerous as a means to test it and learn from the disease. It was banned in the U.S by Obama and later reinstalled by Trump through lobbying). The experts stated that this was not created in a lab and many would label you as conspiracy theorists if you did so to the point where you were banned from social media outlets if you simply said
"Hmmm there is a coronavirus laboratory in exactly the location where the virus originated, not to mention multiple researches from the lab reported as being sick right before the virus was discovered"
Privately researchers were saying the same thing, that the virus is too transmissible to be derived naturally. Publicly stating the opposite because if the world finds out the virus was leaked accidentally by a lab. There entire field is gone and no funding would exist.
Yet we're still treated as idiots, "We'll never know where the virus originated from". This is a case of the experts having a deep conflict of interest.
Example #2
Wall street or WS (because I am lazy right now) has perfected the ability to make risk asymmetric. By taking risk off of themselves and placing it on the taxpayer. Many have and will continue to lobby for deregulation and open their accounts for subsidies when they blow up. Making vast quantities of money in the short term and leaving the bill for the tax payers when their financial instrument's blow up after years of occurring reckless risks. This is also an expert problem because many avoid actually addressing the cause of the problem by doing an intellectual gymnastic argument shifting themselves from the blame and putting onto the system as a whole.
Example #3
National security experts, these experts are all over corporate media in the U.S. They advocate for aggressive tactics and war where their children or love ones will never be on the front lines. This type of expert, will be paid handsomely by defense contractors and then go on news outlets and advocate for blood to be spilled just not their blood or anyone else they're related to. Lets not forget advocates for the Iraq war like John Bolton and Bill Kristol. Will never see the battle field but will confidently and psychopathically advocate for the war still even after it being labeled as a unanimous disaster from both parties, voters, virtually everyone around the world.
We cannot bucket all experts together and act like we should always listen to everything that comes out of their mouths. Experts like humans can be bought, just like scientist's. I listen to good arguments presented with evidence that can be falsifiable not experts. If that makes me some sort of loon or conspiracy theorist, I will happily accept that label rather than listen to "authoritative" individuals. This is something the author does across the book, preach about listening to experts as if the political class has not been largely bought off through think thanks, grants or cushy board jobs they have no expertise to be on other than slavishly carrying water for the status quo. Go look on every major news outlet right now, tell me who is aggressively asking for a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine? War mongers have successfully manipulated leftists into a sympathy war support at the expense of huge tail risks for the war. Not to mention, 100 billion has been spent already. Think about where that money goes? It goes into "defense" manufactures accounts. These views would automatically have me labeled as some Kremlin puppet by the political class despite wanting peace and to end the tail risks of the war spinning off.
This goes to the heart of todays media political class, authors like this are much better at pointing out the flaws in the other side without asking the flaws within themselves.
I think this is an important book both for the rise of the strongman but also the authors commentary is unknowingly reveling. You get to see why these strongman came into power especially with the authors subtle comments on what he thinks people should do.
Three stars.
April 21, 2024
The Age of the Strongman was published in 2022 and address the increase in so-called strongmen in global politics. There are chapters dedicated to Putin, Xi, Modi, Trump, BoJo, Netanyahu, Orban, MBS, AMLO, Bolsonaro, Duterte and Abiy Ahmed. The final chapters deal with the response to strongmen in Europe with Merkel and Macron pushing back.
As other reviewers have mentioned this book is pretty much a rehash of the world news in the past 10 or so years. So if you've been paying attention to global politics there is nothing new.
It's also sometimes a bit forced such as putting Boris Johnson into the strongman category. BoJo is a sleazy politician and a showman but pretty far from a strongman. That's why my favourite parts were the lesser known leaders such as Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia or Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico.
As other reviewers have mentioned this book is pretty much a rehash of the world news in the past 10 or so years. So if you've been paying attention to global politics there is nothing new.
It's also sometimes a bit forced such as putting Boris Johnson into the strongman category. BoJo is a sleazy politician and a showman but pretty far from a strongman. That's why my favourite parts were the lesser known leaders such as Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia or Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico.
February 24, 2023
The book is the summary of the "current" strongman leaders, though some of them lost the election (Bolsonaro), were re-elected (Orban and Xi), or returned (Netanyahu) since then. It was interesting that many of them were initially celebrated by the west as purveyors of liberal democratic values. Like Hitler, most were democratically elected, then changed the constitution to remain in the position or challenged the judicial system. "successful societies are built on laws rather than charismatic leadership."
April 5, 2023
This was a really interesting insight into the case for the ‘era of the strongman’, charting its rise from Putin to Trump and beyond. Especially interesting was the chronological narrative and the shared features of these strongmen, who all take inspiration from each other.
Very up to date also, with the final few chapters providing a good discussion of what liberals and democrats can do to turn the tide. Highly recommended read for anyone interested in current global trends.
Very up to date also, with the final few chapters providing a good discussion of what liberals and democrats can do to turn the tide. Highly recommended read for anyone interested in current global trends.
September 28, 2022
Rachman's study of modern autocrats and despots is a must-read. It is timely and relevant in the wake of the Ukraine invasion. As a seasoned foreign policy hand with several decades of experience writing about modern "strongmen", Rachman provides the background and context for our current predicament. If democracy is truly in a "recession", as claimed by scholar Larry Diamond, this book focuses on the leaders who have driven that process.
I confess a Rachman bias. He is a very talented writer and interviewer. His weekly podcast "Rachman Review" is sharp, concise and focused with very knowledgeable guests. His writing chops are solid, but then I note he apprenticed at The Economist.
I confess a Rachman bias. He is a very talented writer and interviewer. His weekly podcast "Rachman Review" is sharp, concise and focused with very knowledgeable guests. His writing chops are solid, but then I note he apprenticed at The Economist.
February 12, 2023
Just a long Wikipedia article, nothing new to add to the discourse
January 3, 2023
Well written book by one of the best columnists worldwide.
The book is at times a bit repetitive, and for someone following international news closely it does not always contain a lot of new information.
Introduction
- The strongman style is not confined to authoritarian systems, it is also common among elected politicians in democracices
- Since 2005 every year number of countries where freedom has diminished has been larger than increase in political and civil liberties
- Political style of strongman puts the leader's instincts above the law and institutions
- The tendency for Western commentators to initially mistake strongman leaders for liberal reformers is a pattern
- Strongman are part of continuum. One end unchallenged autocrats (china, Saudi). Th en figures in middle like Putin and Erdogan. Then politicians in democracies with contempt for democratic norms like Trump Orban Modi and Bolsenaro
- As a result of international movement towards personalised politics, it has become harder to maintain a clear line between the authoritarian and democratic worlds.
- There are four cross-cutting characteristics that are common to the strongman style: the creation of a cult of personality; contempt for the rule of law; the claim to represent the real people against the elites' politics driven by fear and nationalism
- Another common aspect of the cult of personality is the merging of the interests of the strongman and of the state
- Strongman also typically believe that institutions and the law are standing in the way of what needs to be done
- They claim to have an intuitive understanding and sympathy for ordinary folk
- The strongman also typically espouse traditional views on the family, sexuality and gender. They scoff at the political correctness of liberal politicians
- Their success is a symptom of the crisis in liberalism. That crisis is multi-faceted, but can be broken down into four elements: economic, social, technological and geopolitical
- Many of the strongman leaders who have emerged outside the west have capitalised on the frustrations created by weak states that seem to have failed to deal with street crime and high-level corruption
- It is when economic grievances are linked to broader fears - such as immigration, crime or national decline - that strongman leaders really come into their own
- Strongman leaders often play upon a deep fear that dominant majority is about to be displaced, suffering enormous cultural and economic losses in the process
- Asian nationalism is driven by rising expectations; the West's nationalism is driven by disappointed hopes. But the political outcome is surprisingly similar: a call to make the country great again
Putin: the archetype
- Both the archetype and model for current generation of strongman leaders
- Within a year of Putin taking power, two owners of independent media fled the country
- Putin's key contact was Sobchak, one of his former law professors, who became St Petersburg first democratically elected mayor in 1918
- Most of his supporters insist that he knows that the USSR belongs to history
- 2007 speech at MSC: accuses US of almost unconstrained hyper use of military force in IR and plunging the world into an abyss of conflicts
- Putin is both an angry nationalist and cynical manipulator
- If you mention brutal behaviour of RUS in Chechnya or Syria you will always have Iraq thrown at you
- In afterglow Crimea, Putin came close to achieving ultimate goal of strongman ruler: complete identification of nation with the leader
- If Putin is both a genuine nationalist and frontman for a corrupt regime, the link between the two is the deep and corrosive cynicism that runs through RUS leaders approach to politic and life
Erdogan: from liberal reformer to authoritarian strongman
- Obama spoke more to Erdogan than any other leader in his first term
- Erdogan was forced to step down as mayor in 1998 for citing a poem with 'the mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers'
- In 1996 he had said as mayor: democracy is like a trim, you ride it until you arrive at your designation, then you step off
- Much of the liberalising measures of the early Erdogan years also helped Islamists strengthen their position in society (veils at uni's i.e.)
Xi Jinping: China and the return of the cult of personality
- One Chinese dissident told me that the only thing that had made him positively of Xi was meeting his daughter, she was not entitled, but intelligent and open to the outside world
- By some estimates 14% of the top cadres of the party were arrested and imprisoned as part of the anti-corruption campaign
- Many feared Xi believed Beijings own propaganda: that the problems in KH were the product of agitation by hostile foreign forces.
- Chinese gov statistics, which showed a 60% reduction in the birth rate in Xinjiang, led to allegations that these measures went beyond brutal repression and were producing a cultural genocide
Modi: a strongman politics in the world's largest democracy
- The group had traditionally run post-index India, but no swept aside by Model. This old elite had 'lost touch with the real India' (like Trump's narrative)
- As many of Modi's followers see it, even Indian independence in 1947 did not end Hindu subservience. for most of the post-independence era, India was led by the Congress party, which Modi and his Bharitiya Janata Party accuse of relying on a Muslim vote bank
- Founded in 1925, the RSS was dedicated to the idea that India is in essence a Hindu nation. Its founder Hedgewar was admirer of Mussolini. Former RSS activist assassinated Ghandi in 1948
- Some BJP members of parliament are perpare dot give public vote to a radically different view: that Gandhi assassin was a national hero.
- Modi's meteoric rise has been fuelled by the party's championship of the destruction of a mosque in the city of Ayodhya, which it claimed had been built on a site holy to Hindus
- Reputation Modi (killing thousands after anti-Muslim riots) lead him to be banned from entering the US until his election in 2014
- 2015 Obama praised Modi for dynamism and potential
- In early years in office little confirmed worst fears of critics, there was little inter-communal violence
- Modi doesn't say the worst stuff himself, he poses for selfies with those who do
- Strongman leaders have a tendency to become steadily more autocratic and arbitrary the longer they stay in office
- 2019 Modi gov abolished special constitutional status of only majority-muslim state, Jammu and Kashmir, and followed this up with a brand crackdown on civil liberties
- Amnesty forced to close its doors in 2021. In 2021 for first time since 1997 partly free by Freedom House
- While the Supreme Court remains formally independent from the gov, some judges seemed uncomfortably close to Modi
- The West is no longer a possible threat to Indian security
- I could be argued that India's own slide into illiberalism was strengthening the global trend towards authoritarianism
Orban Kzcynski and the rise of illiberal Europe
- In september 2015, Orban was invited to speak at the CSU conference. He told them the crisis offers the chance for national Christian ideology to regain supremacy not only in Hungary but in the whole of Europe. We are experience the end of all the liberal bubble, and era is coming to an end.
- Kzcynski had cast himself as student of Orban. They diced they needed to control the institutions of the states, courts, media and schools
- Orban in 2020: we use to think that EU was our future, today we are the future of the EU
- 1994 bad elections breaking point Orban: began to break with older urban liberals from Budapest
- In 2018 transparency international estimated some 40% of public contracts in Hungary awarded after only one bidder.
- CDU did its utmost to shit its eyes for erosion democracy because it would cost precious parliamentary moajority
- In 2017 prominent academic belied the state media in Poland was now more pro-gov than in 1970s
- In 2013 about 1/3 of Polish believed Smolensk was a mass assasination
Boris Johnson and Brexit Britain
- Of course im in favour tof the EU, how could you not be (Johnson to Rachmann in 2002)
- 2008 mayor London: moved by citizenship ceremony
- Behind closed doors Johnson expressed qualms about the Turkey-bashing
- Gove had announced Johnson was not fit for office
- Shortly before quitting as foreign secretary Johnson had told group fellow Tories: I am increasingly admiring of Trump, imagine him doing Brexit
- 2019: 54% Britons agreed UK needed strong ruler, willing to break the rules
- The country has an unwritten constitution and has relied on the good chap model of governance
Trump - The American Strongman
- I saw similar complacency of exceptionalism in the British establishment
- Fiona Hill: we were arrogant enough to think that what happened in Ukrain and Moldova could never happen to us
- Race and ethnicity were the single best predictor of a vote for Trump
- Firehouse of falsehoods taken over from Putin: so many different conspiracy theories and alternative facts that the truth becomes one version of events among many
- Hill: Trump suffered from autocrat envy. Trump nicknamed Erdogan the Sultan and bantered about how jealous he was of boundless ability Erdogan to get his way at home
- Trump: Xi should go ahead with building camps in Xinjiang, was the right thing
Duterte and the erosion of democracy in South East Asia
- Dutarte put the theory to the test: he openly boasts of having killed people, of stubbing someone to death in a drunk beach brawl, of gunning down suspected murderers, of hurling another murderer from a helicopter
- 3/4 of member national congress Philippines come from traditional political dynasties
- What sets Duterte apart from other strongman is his lack of ideology. Puts him closer to Bolsenaro and Trump
The rise of MBS and the Netanyahu phenomenon
- The new Saudis strongman has swept away the old system of collective royal leadership based on seniority and consensus
- Frequent whatsapp messages between MBS and Kushner both fascination and concern of US intelligence
- Bibi on if humouring Obama by committing to two-state solution, 'obviously I am doing that'
- View that to secure international acceptance with Arab neighbours, Israel had to make peace with Palestinians - Netanyahu switched it other way around
- Labour was led by Eastern European exiles, who came from the left and regarded as intellectual and social elite. Likud drew support from Sephardic Jews who had been expelled or emigrated from Arab nations, and later from immigrants who arrived from RUS
- Trip to Israel swiftly became almost a compulsory stop for the new generation of strongman leaders
- The paradox under MBS social freedoms expanding against backdrop of a reign of terror.
Bolsenaro, Almo and the return of the Latin MAmerican Caudillo
- Until early 80s, Latin America has been dominated by authoritarian leaders; in 1978 there were just three democracies
- Bolsenaro social conservatism in line with voters: in 2020 61% supported plan Bolsenaro to open military schools, and majorities opposed gay marriage and abortion
- Coalition Bolsenaro: beef bible bullets
- Most important 1982 debt crisis: dictatorship buckled under opprobrium of economic failure
- Corbyn described Chanvez once as an inspiration to all of us fighting back against austerity and neoliberal economics
- Similarities between initial responses Bolseonaro and Amlo demonstrated right and left populism often underpinned by same instincts
Abiy Ahmed and democratic disillusionment in Africa
- Recurring pattern. Charismatic new leader emerges, portrayed by west as liberal reformer, then awkward facts emerge and reformer becomes authoritarian. Between 2018 and 2020 whole cycle with Abiy Ahmed
- CCP has invited African politicians to training programs, about Chinese culture but also on propaganda, managing opposition and monitor dissent
Merkel, Macron and EU struggle against strongman
- Geithner, the US treasury secretary, remarked after the global financial crisis that Merkel was the only world leader who was numerate
- When the far right is at 5% you can ask the police to keep an eye on them. When they are at 25% they are the police
- 2019: frustration in DUI with Macron shooting from the hip. One suggested Macron intellectual version of Trump
- 2021: 84% French agree violence getting worse, 73% France collapsing and 45% soon civil war
- French president even awarder France highest award to El-Sisi
- Darmanin interior minister: islamism Trojan horse containing a fragmentation bomb that is targeting our country
Soros, Bannon and battle of ideas
- Soros: how long before CCP lose grip power. Rachmann: 30 years. Soros: pity I hoped to see it
- Phiosophical justification for authoritarian rule: idea that there could be no such thing as truly independent institutions or objective truth. About book Carl Schmitt
-
The book is at times a bit repetitive, and for someone following international news closely it does not always contain a lot of new information.
Introduction
- The strongman style is not confined to authoritarian systems, it is also common among elected politicians in democracices
- Since 2005 every year number of countries where freedom has diminished has been larger than increase in political and civil liberties
- Political style of strongman puts the leader's instincts above the law and institutions
- The tendency for Western commentators to initially mistake strongman leaders for liberal reformers is a pattern
- Strongman are part of continuum. One end unchallenged autocrats (china, Saudi). Th en figures in middle like Putin and Erdogan. Then politicians in democracies with contempt for democratic norms like Trump Orban Modi and Bolsenaro
- As a result of international movement towards personalised politics, it has become harder to maintain a clear line between the authoritarian and democratic worlds.
- There are four cross-cutting characteristics that are common to the strongman style: the creation of a cult of personality; contempt for the rule of law; the claim to represent the real people against the elites' politics driven by fear and nationalism
- Another common aspect of the cult of personality is the merging of the interests of the strongman and of the state
- Strongman also typically believe that institutions and the law are standing in the way of what needs to be done
- They claim to have an intuitive understanding and sympathy for ordinary folk
- The strongman also typically espouse traditional views on the family, sexuality and gender. They scoff at the political correctness of liberal politicians
- Their success is a symptom of the crisis in liberalism. That crisis is multi-faceted, but can be broken down into four elements: economic, social, technological and geopolitical
- Many of the strongman leaders who have emerged outside the west have capitalised on the frustrations created by weak states that seem to have failed to deal with street crime and high-level corruption
- It is when economic grievances are linked to broader fears - such as immigration, crime or national decline - that strongman leaders really come into their own
- Strongman leaders often play upon a deep fear that dominant majority is about to be displaced, suffering enormous cultural and economic losses in the process
- Asian nationalism is driven by rising expectations; the West's nationalism is driven by disappointed hopes. But the political outcome is surprisingly similar: a call to make the country great again
Putin: the archetype
- Both the archetype and model for current generation of strongman leaders
- Within a year of Putin taking power, two owners of independent media fled the country
- Putin's key contact was Sobchak, one of his former law professors, who became St Petersburg first democratically elected mayor in 1918
- Most of his supporters insist that he knows that the USSR belongs to history
- 2007 speech at MSC: accuses US of almost unconstrained hyper use of military force in IR and plunging the world into an abyss of conflicts
- Putin is both an angry nationalist and cynical manipulator
- If you mention brutal behaviour of RUS in Chechnya or Syria you will always have Iraq thrown at you
- In afterglow Crimea, Putin came close to achieving ultimate goal of strongman ruler: complete identification of nation with the leader
- If Putin is both a genuine nationalist and frontman for a corrupt regime, the link between the two is the deep and corrosive cynicism that runs through RUS leaders approach to politic and life
Erdogan: from liberal reformer to authoritarian strongman
- Obama spoke more to Erdogan than any other leader in his first term
- Erdogan was forced to step down as mayor in 1998 for citing a poem with 'the mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers'
- In 1996 he had said as mayor: democracy is like a trim, you ride it until you arrive at your designation, then you step off
- Much of the liberalising measures of the early Erdogan years also helped Islamists strengthen their position in society (veils at uni's i.e.)
Xi Jinping: China and the return of the cult of personality
- One Chinese dissident told me that the only thing that had made him positively of Xi was meeting his daughter, she was not entitled, but intelligent and open to the outside world
- By some estimates 14% of the top cadres of the party were arrested and imprisoned as part of the anti-corruption campaign
- Many feared Xi believed Beijings own propaganda: that the problems in KH were the product of agitation by hostile foreign forces.
- Chinese gov statistics, which showed a 60% reduction in the birth rate in Xinjiang, led to allegations that these measures went beyond brutal repression and were producing a cultural genocide
Modi: a strongman politics in the world's largest democracy
- The group had traditionally run post-index India, but no swept aside by Model. This old elite had 'lost touch with the real India' (like Trump's narrative)
- As many of Modi's followers see it, even Indian independence in 1947 did not end Hindu subservience. for most of the post-independence era, India was led by the Congress party, which Modi and his Bharitiya Janata Party accuse of relying on a Muslim vote bank
- Founded in 1925, the RSS was dedicated to the idea that India is in essence a Hindu nation. Its founder Hedgewar was admirer of Mussolini. Former RSS activist assassinated Ghandi in 1948
- Some BJP members of parliament are perpare dot give public vote to a radically different view: that Gandhi assassin was a national hero.
- Modi's meteoric rise has been fuelled by the party's championship of the destruction of a mosque in the city of Ayodhya, which it claimed had been built on a site holy to Hindus
- Reputation Modi (killing thousands after anti-Muslim riots) lead him to be banned from entering the US until his election in 2014
- 2015 Obama praised Modi for dynamism and potential
- In early years in office little confirmed worst fears of critics, there was little inter-communal violence
- Modi doesn't say the worst stuff himself, he poses for selfies with those who do
- Strongman leaders have a tendency to become steadily more autocratic and arbitrary the longer they stay in office
- 2019 Modi gov abolished special constitutional status of only majority-muslim state, Jammu and Kashmir, and followed this up with a brand crackdown on civil liberties
- Amnesty forced to close its doors in 2021. In 2021 for first time since 1997 partly free by Freedom House
- While the Supreme Court remains formally independent from the gov, some judges seemed uncomfortably close to Modi
- The West is no longer a possible threat to Indian security
- I could be argued that India's own slide into illiberalism was strengthening the global trend towards authoritarianism
Orban Kzcynski and the rise of illiberal Europe
- In september 2015, Orban was invited to speak at the CSU conference. He told them the crisis offers the chance for national Christian ideology to regain supremacy not only in Hungary but in the whole of Europe. We are experience the end of all the liberal bubble, and era is coming to an end.
- Kzcynski had cast himself as student of Orban. They diced they needed to control the institutions of the states, courts, media and schools
- Orban in 2020: we use to think that EU was our future, today we are the future of the EU
- 1994 bad elections breaking point Orban: began to break with older urban liberals from Budapest
- In 2018 transparency international estimated some 40% of public contracts in Hungary awarded after only one bidder.
- CDU did its utmost to shit its eyes for erosion democracy because it would cost precious parliamentary moajority
- In 2017 prominent academic belied the state media in Poland was now more pro-gov than in 1970s
- In 2013 about 1/3 of Polish believed Smolensk was a mass assasination
Boris Johnson and Brexit Britain
- Of course im in favour tof the EU, how could you not be (Johnson to Rachmann in 2002)
- 2008 mayor London: moved by citizenship ceremony
- Behind closed doors Johnson expressed qualms about the Turkey-bashing
- Gove had announced Johnson was not fit for office
- Shortly before quitting as foreign secretary Johnson had told group fellow Tories: I am increasingly admiring of Trump, imagine him doing Brexit
- 2019: 54% Britons agreed UK needed strong ruler, willing to break the rules
- The country has an unwritten constitution and has relied on the good chap model of governance
Trump - The American Strongman
- I saw similar complacency of exceptionalism in the British establishment
- Fiona Hill: we were arrogant enough to think that what happened in Ukrain and Moldova could never happen to us
- Race and ethnicity were the single best predictor of a vote for Trump
- Firehouse of falsehoods taken over from Putin: so many different conspiracy theories and alternative facts that the truth becomes one version of events among many
- Hill: Trump suffered from autocrat envy. Trump nicknamed Erdogan the Sultan and bantered about how jealous he was of boundless ability Erdogan to get his way at home
- Trump: Xi should go ahead with building camps in Xinjiang, was the right thing
Duterte and the erosion of democracy in South East Asia
- Dutarte put the theory to the test: he openly boasts of having killed people, of stubbing someone to death in a drunk beach brawl, of gunning down suspected murderers, of hurling another murderer from a helicopter
- 3/4 of member national congress Philippines come from traditional political dynasties
- What sets Duterte apart from other strongman is his lack of ideology. Puts him closer to Bolsenaro and Trump
The rise of MBS and the Netanyahu phenomenon
- The new Saudis strongman has swept away the old system of collective royal leadership based on seniority and consensus
- Frequent whatsapp messages between MBS and Kushner both fascination and concern of US intelligence
- Bibi on if humouring Obama by committing to two-state solution, 'obviously I am doing that'
- View that to secure international acceptance with Arab neighbours, Israel had to make peace with Palestinians - Netanyahu switched it other way around
- Labour was led by Eastern European exiles, who came from the left and regarded as intellectual and social elite. Likud drew support from Sephardic Jews who had been expelled or emigrated from Arab nations, and later from immigrants who arrived from RUS
- Trip to Israel swiftly became almost a compulsory stop for the new generation of strongman leaders
- The paradox under MBS social freedoms expanding against backdrop of a reign of terror.
Bolsenaro, Almo and the return of the Latin MAmerican Caudillo
- Until early 80s, Latin America has been dominated by authoritarian leaders; in 1978 there were just three democracies
- Bolsenaro social conservatism in line with voters: in 2020 61% supported plan Bolsenaro to open military schools, and majorities opposed gay marriage and abortion
- Coalition Bolsenaro: beef bible bullets
- Most important 1982 debt crisis: dictatorship buckled under opprobrium of economic failure
- Corbyn described Chanvez once as an inspiration to all of us fighting back against austerity and neoliberal economics
- Similarities between initial responses Bolseonaro and Amlo demonstrated right and left populism often underpinned by same instincts
Abiy Ahmed and democratic disillusionment in Africa
- Recurring pattern. Charismatic new leader emerges, portrayed by west as liberal reformer, then awkward facts emerge and reformer becomes authoritarian. Between 2018 and 2020 whole cycle with Abiy Ahmed
- CCP has invited African politicians to training programs, about Chinese culture but also on propaganda, managing opposition and monitor dissent
Merkel, Macron and EU struggle against strongman
- Geithner, the US treasury secretary, remarked after the global financial crisis that Merkel was the only world leader who was numerate
- When the far right is at 5% you can ask the police to keep an eye on them. When they are at 25% they are the police
- 2019: frustration in DUI with Macron shooting from the hip. One suggested Macron intellectual version of Trump
- 2021: 84% French agree violence getting worse, 73% France collapsing and 45% soon civil war
- French president even awarder France highest award to El-Sisi
- Darmanin interior minister: islamism Trojan horse containing a fragmentation bomb that is targeting our country
Soros, Bannon and battle of ideas
- Soros: how long before CCP lose grip power. Rachmann: 30 years. Soros: pity I hoped to see it
- Phiosophical justification for authoritarian rule: idea that there could be no such thing as truly independent institutions or objective truth. About book Carl Schmitt
-
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 17, 2022
I knew I would enjoy the book; Gideon Rachman is one of my 3-4 favorite columnists in the Financial Times.
While I am familiar with each of the “strongmen” presented in the book (Putin, Erdogen, Trump, Xi, Bolsonaro, Duarte, Netanyahu, Johnson, Obrador, MBS, …) it was very helpful to tie them together in a consistent narrative. Rachman has met most of the strongmen he describes, which adds interesting anecdotes to each narrative. Although there is a great deal of consistency to their styles, he does a nice job highlighting the differences as well.
A few insights really stood out: That the key test of a strongman is not so much popular reaction as the strength of the institutions designed to maintain rule of law and balance the power of the executive; how strongmen generally start by embracing “liberal values” and then steadily erode them once in power; how strongmen use power to maintain their position (defenestrating the courts, independent media and opposition political figures); their willingness to condone or encourage violence; the definition and role of populism. I also found the discussion of some of the political philosophies embraced by strongmen to be thought-provoking. His close on the fundamental weakness of strongmen being their mortality and succession was succinct and thought-provoking.
What would make the book better? I would like to have seen a better framework to differentiate between the strongmen, as opposed to concentrating on on the overlaps. One example of this could be the extent where territorial expansion is part of their “promise.” Another could be the extent to which they rely on traditional institutions (religious institutions, the military) to maintain power, versus “popular support.” This could be enhanced by using historical figures to help illustrate or define each segment — including the “Lee Kuan Yew” segment. Although there were occasional references to historical “strongmen,” the book seemed to focus on the “modern strongman.” I also believe a greater emphasis on "historical strongmen" (primarily 20th century) such as Chavez (Venezueal), Castro (Cuba), Park (Korea), Chiang (Taiwan), Lee (Singapore), Suharto (Indonesia) would give greater depth to the "lifecycle" of different strongmen -- particularly how destructive the end can be (but not always -- Lee Kwan Yew gradually ceded power to the next generation and was very careful to build up strong institutions versus weaken them).
I’d highly recommend the book as the topic is so relevant to most countries in the world and Rachman is such a compelling writer.
While I am familiar with each of the “strongmen” presented in the book (Putin, Erdogen, Trump, Xi, Bolsonaro, Duarte, Netanyahu, Johnson, Obrador, MBS, …) it was very helpful to tie them together in a consistent narrative. Rachman has met most of the strongmen he describes, which adds interesting anecdotes to each narrative. Although there is a great deal of consistency to their styles, he does a nice job highlighting the differences as well.
A few insights really stood out: That the key test of a strongman is not so much popular reaction as the strength of the institutions designed to maintain rule of law and balance the power of the executive; how strongmen generally start by embracing “liberal values” and then steadily erode them once in power; how strongmen use power to maintain their position (defenestrating the courts, independent media and opposition political figures); their willingness to condone or encourage violence; the definition and role of populism. I also found the discussion of some of the political philosophies embraced by strongmen to be thought-provoking. His close on the fundamental weakness of strongmen being their mortality and succession was succinct and thought-provoking.
What would make the book better? I would like to have seen a better framework to differentiate between the strongmen, as opposed to concentrating on on the overlaps. One example of this could be the extent where territorial expansion is part of their “promise.” Another could be the extent to which they rely on traditional institutions (religious institutions, the military) to maintain power, versus “popular support.” This could be enhanced by using historical figures to help illustrate or define each segment — including the “Lee Kuan Yew” segment. Although there were occasional references to historical “strongmen,” the book seemed to focus on the “modern strongman.” I also believe a greater emphasis on "historical strongmen" (primarily 20th century) such as Chavez (Venezueal), Castro (Cuba), Park (Korea), Chiang (Taiwan), Lee (Singapore), Suharto (Indonesia) would give greater depth to the "lifecycle" of different strongmen -- particularly how destructive the end can be (but not always -- Lee Kwan Yew gradually ceded power to the next generation and was very careful to build up strong institutions versus weaken them).
I’d highly recommend the book as the topic is so relevant to most countries in the world and Rachman is such a compelling writer.
April 4, 2024
“Durable political systems ultimately rely on institutions, not individuals. And successful societies are built on laws rather than charismatic leadership.” This is how Gideon ended his book. I want to believe this with my whole heart, and yet the contemporary geopolitical situation shows a more nuanced view. It feels like most developed countries are leaning towards nationalism with a strong leader at the top—one who protects their interests and sympathizes less with the “others.” According to them, the “others” are part of the root cause, although this perception isn’t accurate.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that neoliberalism hasn’t equally shared the benefits of economic growth over the past decades. The resulting sustained inequality has led to distrust in our political system, and people want change. We must change. I believe they don’t necessarily want a strongman, but rather institutions that create an equal playing field. They simply hope that a strongman will help—despite evidence to the contrary. Let’s face it: neoliberalism has failed (like driving at high speed without holding the steering wheel and praying you won’t crash).
Returning to the book: I really appreciate Gideon’s writing style. As with any book, descriptions of people and situations often simplify a complex world. Yet, the underlying trends of strongman leadership are similar: wild rhetoric, fondness for military parades, higher tolerance for conflicts of interest, and intolerance for critical journalists and judges.
One obvious concern is the erosion of democracies worldwide. In 1945, we had just 12 democracies. By 2002, that number had risen to 92 (for the first time surpassing the number of autocracies). Unfortunately, the decline began shortly after. In 2020, we experienced the 15th consecutive year of decline.
Based on Gideon’s assessment, there are four characteristics that apply to each strongman leader discussed in this book:
Creation of a cult around them: They believe that without them, failure is inevitable.
Contempt for the rule of law: They bend it to their needs.
Claim to represent the real people: They promise to focus on the interests of ordinary citizens.
Politics driven by fear and nationalism: They rally against a common enemy.
I highly recommend reading this book. It provides a better understanding of the motivations behind strongman leaders in our world and how they exploit fear and economic downturns to their advantage.
My hope is that collectively, we return to our senses. Gideon believes that the strongman style of government may contain the seeds of its own destruction. I hope it is true. However, I also believe we will be tested on our journey.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that neoliberalism hasn’t equally shared the benefits of economic growth over the past decades. The resulting sustained inequality has led to distrust in our political system, and people want change. We must change. I believe they don’t necessarily want a strongman, but rather institutions that create an equal playing field. They simply hope that a strongman will help—despite evidence to the contrary. Let’s face it: neoliberalism has failed (like driving at high speed without holding the steering wheel and praying you won’t crash).
Returning to the book: I really appreciate Gideon’s writing style. As with any book, descriptions of people and situations often simplify a complex world. Yet, the underlying trends of strongman leadership are similar: wild rhetoric, fondness for military parades, higher tolerance for conflicts of interest, and intolerance for critical journalists and judges.
One obvious concern is the erosion of democracies worldwide. In 1945, we had just 12 democracies. By 2002, that number had risen to 92 (for the first time surpassing the number of autocracies). Unfortunately, the decline began shortly after. In 2020, we experienced the 15th consecutive year of decline.
Based on Gideon’s assessment, there are four characteristics that apply to each strongman leader discussed in this book:
Creation of a cult around them: They believe that without them, failure is inevitable.
Contempt for the rule of law: They bend it to their needs.
Claim to represent the real people: They promise to focus on the interests of ordinary citizens.
Politics driven by fear and nationalism: They rally against a common enemy.
I highly recommend reading this book. It provides a better understanding of the motivations behind strongman leaders in our world and how they exploit fear and economic downturns to their advantage.
My hope is that collectively, we return to our senses. Gideon believes that the strongman style of government may contain the seeds of its own destruction. I hope it is true. However, I also believe we will be tested on our journey.
October 25, 2022
Gideon Rachman, the author here and the Financial Times’ chief diplomatic commentator, is a well informed and acute observer of contemporary global politics. This short book lives up to his usual standards.
The book covers today’s, yesterday’s and maybe tomorrow’s rogue’s gallery of anti-liberal bad guys whose idea of civil society should be anathema for those in favor of sustainable and just economic and social development, but which resonates in our imperfect world of severe inequality and injustice.
The takeaway for me is the pressing need to address the root causes of the despair, alienation and fading hopes of the pockets of society that fuel the political support for these despots, whilst defending against their incursions against democratic rule throughout the world.
The book covers today’s, yesterday’s and maybe tomorrow’s rogue’s gallery of anti-liberal bad guys whose idea of civil society should be anathema for those in favor of sustainable and just economic and social development, but which resonates in our imperfect world of severe inequality and injustice.
The takeaway for me is the pressing need to address the root causes of the despair, alienation and fading hopes of the pockets of society that fuel the political support for these despots, whilst defending against their incursions against democratic rule throughout the world.
March 5, 2023
This is excellent. Well-written and -researched, Rachman does what befits a top-tier journalist: he lays out a factual and structured picture of each ruler fitting the Strongman pattern to differing but significant degrees. This book does not contain much deeper analysis nor is it a call to action. It is a source, a valuable repository of information to form informed opinions or asked informed questions. That is commendable - and recommendable.
July 10, 2024
if you like politics you will like this book. it dives deep into specific leaders and their perception of power, using professional language while at the same time being easy to understand and full of personal encounters with said leaders. overall I truly enjoyed this one and it gave me a lot to think about!
September 25, 2022
Many of us celebrated when the Berlin wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union dissolved shortly after, seeing liberal democracy prevailing over authoritarian states ruled by strongmen. But as this book shows, there is a pattern to strongman rule, and country after country has fallen to strongmen over the ensuing 30+ years.
A list of characteristics of strongmen is presented, followed by a longer-than-necessary list of strongman examples, most getting their own chapter, as illustration. Some of them we know well, others perhaps not so well. All follow the strongman archetype.
While we've all likely read or heard about most of the profiled people at one time or another, this book collects them all in the strongman narrative, and taken together, it is chilling.
A list of characteristics of strongmen is presented, followed by a longer-than-necessary list of strongman examples, most getting their own chapter, as illustration. Some of them we know well, others perhaps not so well. All follow the strongman archetype.
While we've all likely read or heard about most of the profiled people at one time or another, this book collects them all in the strongman narrative, and taken together, it is chilling.
December 19, 2022
Strongmen – das sind jene Männer, die seit geraumer Zeit in Europa, in den Amerikas und Asien die Machtpositionen einnehmen und, wenn auch jeweils individuell, damit begonnen haben, die liberalen Demokratien anzugreifen. Mal tun sie dies als offenes Programm – Xi Jinping oder Wladimir Putin stehen für diesen Typus, aber auch Victor Orbán oder Jarosław Kaczyński – mal zunächst versteckt, dann immer offener – bestes Beispiel dafür ist und bleibt natürlich Donald Trump, seines Zeichens der 45. Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Es gibt eine ganze Reihe von Figuren, die mal per Dekret, mal per Wahl an die Macht kamen, alle vereint, daß sie pluralistische Gesellschaften ablehnen, daß sie weder die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz noch unabhängige Medien mögen, einige – wie Putin und Xi – verfügen über eine Allmacht, die es ihnen erlaubt, diese Institutionen ganz einfach außer Kraft zu setzen oder aber, wie im Falle Chinas, gar nicht erst zuzulassen. Sie alle aber vereinigen einige klar definierbare Eigenschaften auf sich, die es ermöglichen, sie zu vergleichen.
Gideon Rachman, einst beim BBC World Service, seit geraumer Zeit Chefkommentator der Financial Times, für Jahre Korrespondent des Economist in Washington, Brüssel und Bangkok, nimmt in seinem Buch WELT DER AUTOKRATEN. WIE XI, PUTIN, TRUMP UND CO. DIE DEMOKRATIE BEDROHEN (THE AGE OF THE STRONGMEN. HOW THE CULT OF THE LEADER THREATENS DEMOCRACY AROUND THE WORLD; original 2022/Dt. 2022) eben die genannten und eine ganze Reihe weiterer Strongmen unter die Lupe und gibt dem Leser ein recht gut lesbares Kompendium in Sachen Autokratie, illiberale Demokratie und jener, die sie forcieren, an die Hand. In der Einleitung gibt er jene Merkmale bekannt, die seiner Meinung nach als Kriterien der Definition der Strongmen funktionieren, auch wenn die einzelnen Personen, ihre Geschichte, vor allem ihre Ermächtigung und mehr noch die Art und Weise, wie sie ihre Macht konsolidieren, sehr unterschiedlich gewesen sein mögen.
Sie alle schaffen einen Personenkult um sich, der besagt, daß sie und nur sie in der Lage seien, eine drohende Gefahr, den Untergang der Nation, den Umbruch der Gesellschaft aufzuhalten. Mehr noch: In den meisten Fällen seien sie diejenigen, die das Land, die Nation, zu alter Größe führen könnten. Was natürlich voraussetzt, daß etwas im Argen, die Nation darniederliegt und Bedrohungen aller Art herrschen. So ist das zweite Merkmal dieser Figuren, daß sie immer Nationalismus schüren und damit auf Konzepte des 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhunderts zurückgreifen. Gekoppelt an diesen Nationalismus ist die Angst, daß das Land untergeht, maßgeblich verändert wird, meist durch „Fremde“, also Migranten. Sie verachten den Rechtsstaat und demokratische Entscheidungsprozesse, die sie als langsam und unzureichend erkannt zu haben meinen, weshalb sie die Justiz schnell, die Medien mittelfristig unter ihre Kontrolle bringen wollen. Und als letzter, nicht unwesentlicher Punkt steht ihre Behauptung, das „einfache Volk“, den „kleinen Mann“ gegen eine Elite zu schützen, die sich längst entkoppelt hat und nun versucht, mit Wokeness, Cancel Culture und kaum mehr verständlichen Sprachregeln „das Volk“ zu knechten, wenn nicht gar in eine Diktatur zu zwingen. So werden eben jene Autokraten, die sich oft mit den Mitteln der Demokratie gegen eben diese wenden, zu vermeintlichen Verteidigern eines Systems, das sie zutiefst verachten. Und erreichen das – vor allem Donald Trump darf hier als Beispiel gelten – meist mit dreisten Lügen. In seinem Fall u.a. mit der besonders dreisten Lüge, sich gegen ein Establishment zu stellen (Washington gilt in den USA Vielen als Synonym für eben dieses Establishment, die Elite), dem er selbst entstammt. Auch wenn da keiner etwas mit ihm zu tun haben wollte und will.
Relativ chronologisch – angefangen bei Putins Ankommen an der Macht im Jahr 2000 – geht Rachman also einige dieser Strongmen durch. Da sind die bereits erwähnten Xi Jinping, Orbán und Kaczyński, Trump natürlich, der türkische Präsident Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, aber auch Boris Johnson wird aufgeführt, der zumindest einige Aspekte eines Strongman aufwies, wenn auch nicht die gesamte Palette. Nun sind dies natürlich die dem Leser eines solchen Buchs eher geläufigen Personen, die man schnell auch selbst mit den Merkmalen eines Strongman, wenn nicht gar jenen eines Diktators, identifiziert hätte. So sind in diesem Werk eher jene Figuren von Interesse, deren Namen man nicht täglich in der Presse liest, im Rundfunk oder Fernsehen hört, sondern eher gelegentlich wahrnimmt und oftmals nicht einzuordnen weiß. Narendra Modi, der indische Premierminister bspw., oder Mohammed bin Salman, der seit geraumer Zeit die Geschicke des Königreichs Saudi-Arabien leitet. Andere, wie Jair Bolsonaro in Brasilien oder Rodrigo Duterte, Präsident der Philippinen, sind geläufiger, ohne daß der gemeine Europäer unbedingt wüsste, wie weit ihr Wirken eigentlich reicht.
Auffällig – und darauf weist auch Rachman deutlich hin – sind natürlich die Unterschiede zwischen diesen Figuren. Ob Putin, Orbán oder Kaczyński, ob Bolsonaro oder Duterte und natürlich Donald Trump – sie alle sind ursprünglich durch mehr oder weniger ordentliche, faire und freie Wahlen an die Macht gekommen. Einige schienen lange sogar freiheitlich-demokratische Versprechen einzulösen, was westliche Kommentatoren – darunter, wie er frank und frei zugibt, auch Rachman selbst – immer wieder zu freundlichen bis euphorischen Zukunftsprognosen veranlasst hatte. Die meisten davon, wenn nicht alle, meist zu Unrecht. Anhand eines Kapitels über den äthiopischen Regierungschef Abiy Ahmed verfolgt Rachman ein seit den 60er Jahren immer wieder auftretendes Muster, das sich vor allem auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent zeigt. Denn immer wieder gab es dort – durch Putsche, Umsturz, manchmal freie Wahlen – Männer, die versprachen, Demokratien nach westlichem Vorbild einzurichten, oftmals auch in diese Richtung gingen und sich dann nach und nach doch in autokratische Herrscher oft übelsten Leumunds verwandelten. Bestes Beispiel dafür ist wahrscheinlich Robert Mugabe, der einst durch freie Wahlen Regierungschef in Simbabwe wurde, Reformen einleitete und der Bevölkerung des Landes vor allem durch Bodenreform und Schulbildung mehr Gerechtigkeit widerfahren ließ, und sich im Laufe von über 30 Jahren an der Macht in einen Gewaltherrscher wandelte, der nahezu weltweit geächtet wurde.
Bolsonaro seinerseits machte nie einen Hehl aus seiner Bewunderung für die Diktatur, die zwischen 1965 und 1985 in Brasilien geherrscht hatte. Einzig, daß in jener Zeit „zu viel gefoltert und zu wenig getötet wurde“ schien ihn zu stören. Seine offen zur Schau gestellte Verachtung für Minderheiten – Schwulen wolle er, sähe er sie auf der Straße, den Schädel einschlagen – und vor allem Frauen waren nie ein Hemmschuh in seinen Kampagnen, sondern vielmehr genau die Sätze, die seine Verehrer hören wollten. Da ähnelt er Donald Trump, der auf einer Wahlkampfveranstaltung behauptete, auf der 5th Avenue einen Menschen erschießen zu können und nicht einen einzigen Wähler zu verlieren – womit er wahrscheinlich sogar richtig lag. Trump wiederum wirkte wie ein verhinderter Autokrat. Seine Ambitionen, Gerichte, die Justiz, die Medien zu beherrschen oder zu vernichten, schlugen doch eher fehl, selbst der von ihm mit drei ultrakonservativen RichterInnen besetzte Supreme Court blieb ihm die letztgültige Gefolgschaft schuldig, als nicht einmal dieses Gremium seiner Lüge vom Wahlbetrug 2020, als er seine zweite Amtszeit gegen Joe Biden verlor, folgen mochte. Wie Bob Woodward einst darlegte, fiel es Trump selbst auf, daß Autokraten – „je gemeiner, desto besser verstehe ich mich mit ihnen“ – seine bevorzugten Gesprächspartner waren, er mit ihnen meist hervorragend auskam. Ganz besonders fiel dies im Zusammenhang mit Wladimir Putin auf, dem gegenüber Trump sich derart devot verhielt, daß der interessierte, wenn auch laienhafte Beobachter durchaus daran glauben konnte, daß der russische Präsident allerhand Material gegen Trump besaß und ihn so gefügig machen konnte.
Doch muß natürlich bedacht sein, daß Figuren wie Xi oder der saudische Prinz sich eben nie irgendwelchen Wahlen haben stellen müssen. Der eine, Xi, ein Kind der Partei (auch, wenn man sich wundert, wie krumm sein Weg dann doch gewesen ist; auch Rachman legt dies noch einmal dar) in einem totalitären Staat, der sich zuvor lediglich äußerst moderat dem Wettbewerb und der Weltwirtschaft gegenüber geöffnet hatte; der andere ein Prinz, Angehöriger eines Herrschergeschlechts in einer absoluten Monarchie. Diese Herrscher fanden natürlich ganz andere Voraussetzungen für ihre Regierung, als ein gewählter Repräsentant. Die gewählten Regierungschefs – Orban und Kaczyński sind dafür die besten Beispiele – mussten hingegen mit absoluten Mehrheiten und, zumindest in Polen, oft gegen harte Widerstände der politischen wie gesellschaftlichen Opposition ihre Machtbereiche ausbauen und das Staatswesen tatsächlich umkrempeln. Dies im Falle beider Länder immer in Gegnerschaft zu jener Organisation, der sie unbedingt angehören wollten und angeblich auch immer noch angehören wollen – der EU.
Einige der behandelten Figuren haben sich letztlich – Bolsonaros Abwahl fand nach der Veröffentlichung des Buchs statt – dann doch an die demokratischen Regeln gehalten, wenn auch zähneknirschend; andere – Trump – verlieren sich in Verschwörungserzählungen, um sich ihre Niederlage nicht eingestehen zu müssen. Verschwörungsnarrative – aber das sei an dieser Stelle nur am Rande erwähnt – gehören bei allen hier behandelten Figuren zur Grundausstattung. Übrigens hat Benjamin Netanjahu, langjähriger Ministerpräsident Israels, den Rachman hier in seinem Kapitel über Mohammed bin Salman nebenbei ebenfalls als Strongman charakterisiert, nach seiner Niederlage bei den Wahlen 2021 ebenfalls das Verschwörungsnarrativ von den „geklauten Wahlen“ und einem „großen Betrug“ bemüht. Mittlerweile, man mag es kaum glauben, steht er vor einer Rückkehr an die Macht – mit einer noch rechteren Koalition, als jenen, die er früher schon schmiedete.
Andere, an vorderster Stelle Putin, beweisen, daß sie eher eskalieren werden, als in das Fahrwasser geordneter Demokratie zurückzukehren. Rachman weist im Vorwort auf Putins Einmarsch in der Ukraine im Februar 2022 hin, die eine letztgültige Abkehr von demokratischen, rechtsstaatlichen, internationales Recht gewährleistenden, Regeln bedeutet. Man kann daran auch erkennen, daß Rachmans Buch wirklich kurzfristig geschrieben und editiert wurde (was in der deutschen Ausgabe leider zu einer Unmenge von Fehlern geführt hat). Im Kielwasser dieses Krieges, so befürchten viele internationale Beobachter, könnte China, könnte Xi, sich entschließen, eine ähnliche „Annexion“ gegenüber Taiwan durchzuführen. Nur wurde Xi natürlich nie zum Staatschef gewählt, sondern hat sich innerhalb der Partei Geltung verschafft und sich, als er die Macht einmal erobert hatte, immer mehr Frei- und Machträume geschaffen, die ihn mittlerweile sogar auf Lebenszeit in seiner Stellung halten könnten.
Anders als im Falle Xis – und mittlerweile wohl auch Putins – ist es interessant, wie sehr die einmal demokratisch gewählten Strongmen darauf bedacht sind, zumindest die demokratische Fassade aufrecht zu erhalten. Sowohl Trump als auch Bolsonaro behaupteten ja, sie müssten eben diese sogar verteidigen gegen eine linke, woke Elite, die sie abschaffen wolle. Die meisten der hier aufgeführten Strongmen neigen nicht dazu, sich als Theoretiker hervorzutun. Putin gibt allerdings gern den Hobby-Historiker, der aufgrund eines mythischen Weltbilds beweisen zu können glaubt, daß es die Ukraine gar nicht gibt. Xi hat seine Ideen von Staat, Geschichte und Kommunismus gleich in die Verfassung aufnehmen lassen – eine Ehre, die bisher dem „großen Vorsitzenden“ Mao Zedong vorbehalten geblieben war. Und Victor Orbán gibt den Theoretiker, wenn er die Idee einer „illiberalen Demokratie“ vertritt, was immer das auch sein möge. Anders als bei dem Polen Kaczyński, dem man ebenfalls ein gewisses mythisch-mystisches Weltbild, gespeist aus dem speziellen Katholizismus polnischer Prägung, nachsagen kann, ist Orbáns Theorie-Versuch allerdings dadurch diskreditiert, daß die Korruption, die seine Regierung hervorgebracht hat und regelrecht fördert, zu durchschaubar ist.
Bleibt die Frage, ob ein Buch wie dieses wirklich einen Mehrwert hat? Es hat, kann man antworten, und sei es nur, daß es noch einmal einen Überblick verschafft. Einige Aussagen Rachmans sind schon jetzt von einer immer schnelleren Wirklichkeit überholt worden, aber das ist nun einmal das Schicksal „politischer“ Bücher, die sich einer Analyse der herrschenden Symptome widmen. Rachman gibt Einblicke, stellt Zusammenhänge dar und analysiert eine Wirklichkeit, der wir alle uns Tag für Tag ausgesetzt sehen, egal, ob wir das wollen oder nicht. Allerdings ist er sich auch nicht zu schade, immer wieder darauf zu verweisen, wann, wo und in welchen Situationen er viele der behandelten Herrscher und Herrschaften persönlich getroffen hat. Eitelkeit ist also eingepreist. Auch seine Hinweise, sich, wie so viele andere, einige Male geirrt zu haben, hindert ihn nicht daran, im Schlußwort erneut über die Entwicklungen der kommenden Jahre zu spekulieren. Es sei ihm gegönnt.
Ein Schmankerl allerdings bleibt, und man sollte es erwähnen: Mit Georgia Meloni wurde in Italien im Sommer 2022 eine erste StrongWOman an die Spitze eines europäischen Staates gewählt. Zeit also, das von allen Autokraten so verhasste Gendern auch auf sie selbst anzuwenden: Ab nun also sprechen wir von AutikratInnen. Hallelujah!
Gideon Rachman, einst beim BBC World Service, seit geraumer Zeit Chefkommentator der Financial Times, für Jahre Korrespondent des Economist in Washington, Brüssel und Bangkok, nimmt in seinem Buch WELT DER AUTOKRATEN. WIE XI, PUTIN, TRUMP UND CO. DIE DEMOKRATIE BEDROHEN (THE AGE OF THE STRONGMEN. HOW THE CULT OF THE LEADER THREATENS DEMOCRACY AROUND THE WORLD; original 2022/Dt. 2022) eben die genannten und eine ganze Reihe weiterer Strongmen unter die Lupe und gibt dem Leser ein recht gut lesbares Kompendium in Sachen Autokratie, illiberale Demokratie und jener, die sie forcieren, an die Hand. In der Einleitung gibt er jene Merkmale bekannt, die seiner Meinung nach als Kriterien der Definition der Strongmen funktionieren, auch wenn die einzelnen Personen, ihre Geschichte, vor allem ihre Ermächtigung und mehr noch die Art und Weise, wie sie ihre Macht konsolidieren, sehr unterschiedlich gewesen sein mögen.
Sie alle schaffen einen Personenkult um sich, der besagt, daß sie und nur sie in der Lage seien, eine drohende Gefahr, den Untergang der Nation, den Umbruch der Gesellschaft aufzuhalten. Mehr noch: In den meisten Fällen seien sie diejenigen, die das Land, die Nation, zu alter Größe führen könnten. Was natürlich voraussetzt, daß etwas im Argen, die Nation darniederliegt und Bedrohungen aller Art herrschen. So ist das zweite Merkmal dieser Figuren, daß sie immer Nationalismus schüren und damit auf Konzepte des 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhunderts zurückgreifen. Gekoppelt an diesen Nationalismus ist die Angst, daß das Land untergeht, maßgeblich verändert wird, meist durch „Fremde“, also Migranten. Sie verachten den Rechtsstaat und demokratische Entscheidungsprozesse, die sie als langsam und unzureichend erkannt zu haben meinen, weshalb sie die Justiz schnell, die Medien mittelfristig unter ihre Kontrolle bringen wollen. Und als letzter, nicht unwesentlicher Punkt steht ihre Behauptung, das „einfache Volk“, den „kleinen Mann“ gegen eine Elite zu schützen, die sich längst entkoppelt hat und nun versucht, mit Wokeness, Cancel Culture und kaum mehr verständlichen Sprachregeln „das Volk“ zu knechten, wenn nicht gar in eine Diktatur zu zwingen. So werden eben jene Autokraten, die sich oft mit den Mitteln der Demokratie gegen eben diese wenden, zu vermeintlichen Verteidigern eines Systems, das sie zutiefst verachten. Und erreichen das – vor allem Donald Trump darf hier als Beispiel gelten – meist mit dreisten Lügen. In seinem Fall u.a. mit der besonders dreisten Lüge, sich gegen ein Establishment zu stellen (Washington gilt in den USA Vielen als Synonym für eben dieses Establishment, die Elite), dem er selbst entstammt. Auch wenn da keiner etwas mit ihm zu tun haben wollte und will.
Relativ chronologisch – angefangen bei Putins Ankommen an der Macht im Jahr 2000 – geht Rachman also einige dieser Strongmen durch. Da sind die bereits erwähnten Xi Jinping, Orbán und Kaczyński, Trump natürlich, der türkische Präsident Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, aber auch Boris Johnson wird aufgeführt, der zumindest einige Aspekte eines Strongman aufwies, wenn auch nicht die gesamte Palette. Nun sind dies natürlich die dem Leser eines solchen Buchs eher geläufigen Personen, die man schnell auch selbst mit den Merkmalen eines Strongman, wenn nicht gar jenen eines Diktators, identifiziert hätte. So sind in diesem Werk eher jene Figuren von Interesse, deren Namen man nicht täglich in der Presse liest, im Rundfunk oder Fernsehen hört, sondern eher gelegentlich wahrnimmt und oftmals nicht einzuordnen weiß. Narendra Modi, der indische Premierminister bspw., oder Mohammed bin Salman, der seit geraumer Zeit die Geschicke des Königreichs Saudi-Arabien leitet. Andere, wie Jair Bolsonaro in Brasilien oder Rodrigo Duterte, Präsident der Philippinen, sind geläufiger, ohne daß der gemeine Europäer unbedingt wüsste, wie weit ihr Wirken eigentlich reicht.
Auffällig – und darauf weist auch Rachman deutlich hin – sind natürlich die Unterschiede zwischen diesen Figuren. Ob Putin, Orbán oder Kaczyński, ob Bolsonaro oder Duterte und natürlich Donald Trump – sie alle sind ursprünglich durch mehr oder weniger ordentliche, faire und freie Wahlen an die Macht gekommen. Einige schienen lange sogar freiheitlich-demokratische Versprechen einzulösen, was westliche Kommentatoren – darunter, wie er frank und frei zugibt, auch Rachman selbst – immer wieder zu freundlichen bis euphorischen Zukunftsprognosen veranlasst hatte. Die meisten davon, wenn nicht alle, meist zu Unrecht. Anhand eines Kapitels über den äthiopischen Regierungschef Abiy Ahmed verfolgt Rachman ein seit den 60er Jahren immer wieder auftretendes Muster, das sich vor allem auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent zeigt. Denn immer wieder gab es dort – durch Putsche, Umsturz, manchmal freie Wahlen – Männer, die versprachen, Demokratien nach westlichem Vorbild einzurichten, oftmals auch in diese Richtung gingen und sich dann nach und nach doch in autokratische Herrscher oft übelsten Leumunds verwandelten. Bestes Beispiel dafür ist wahrscheinlich Robert Mugabe, der einst durch freie Wahlen Regierungschef in Simbabwe wurde, Reformen einleitete und der Bevölkerung des Landes vor allem durch Bodenreform und Schulbildung mehr Gerechtigkeit widerfahren ließ, und sich im Laufe von über 30 Jahren an der Macht in einen Gewaltherrscher wandelte, der nahezu weltweit geächtet wurde.
Bolsonaro seinerseits machte nie einen Hehl aus seiner Bewunderung für die Diktatur, die zwischen 1965 und 1985 in Brasilien geherrscht hatte. Einzig, daß in jener Zeit „zu viel gefoltert und zu wenig getötet wurde“ schien ihn zu stören. Seine offen zur Schau gestellte Verachtung für Minderheiten – Schwulen wolle er, sähe er sie auf der Straße, den Schädel einschlagen – und vor allem Frauen waren nie ein Hemmschuh in seinen Kampagnen, sondern vielmehr genau die Sätze, die seine Verehrer hören wollten. Da ähnelt er Donald Trump, der auf einer Wahlkampfveranstaltung behauptete, auf der 5th Avenue einen Menschen erschießen zu können und nicht einen einzigen Wähler zu verlieren – womit er wahrscheinlich sogar richtig lag. Trump wiederum wirkte wie ein verhinderter Autokrat. Seine Ambitionen, Gerichte, die Justiz, die Medien zu beherrschen oder zu vernichten, schlugen doch eher fehl, selbst der von ihm mit drei ultrakonservativen RichterInnen besetzte Supreme Court blieb ihm die letztgültige Gefolgschaft schuldig, als nicht einmal dieses Gremium seiner Lüge vom Wahlbetrug 2020, als er seine zweite Amtszeit gegen Joe Biden verlor, folgen mochte. Wie Bob Woodward einst darlegte, fiel es Trump selbst auf, daß Autokraten – „je gemeiner, desto besser verstehe ich mich mit ihnen“ – seine bevorzugten Gesprächspartner waren, er mit ihnen meist hervorragend auskam. Ganz besonders fiel dies im Zusammenhang mit Wladimir Putin auf, dem gegenüber Trump sich derart devot verhielt, daß der interessierte, wenn auch laienhafte Beobachter durchaus daran glauben konnte, daß der russische Präsident allerhand Material gegen Trump besaß und ihn so gefügig machen konnte.
Doch muß natürlich bedacht sein, daß Figuren wie Xi oder der saudische Prinz sich eben nie irgendwelchen Wahlen haben stellen müssen. Der eine, Xi, ein Kind der Partei (auch, wenn man sich wundert, wie krumm sein Weg dann doch gewesen ist; auch Rachman legt dies noch einmal dar) in einem totalitären Staat, der sich zuvor lediglich äußerst moderat dem Wettbewerb und der Weltwirtschaft gegenüber geöffnet hatte; der andere ein Prinz, Angehöriger eines Herrschergeschlechts in einer absoluten Monarchie. Diese Herrscher fanden natürlich ganz andere Voraussetzungen für ihre Regierung, als ein gewählter Repräsentant. Die gewählten Regierungschefs – Orban und Kaczyński sind dafür die besten Beispiele – mussten hingegen mit absoluten Mehrheiten und, zumindest in Polen, oft gegen harte Widerstände der politischen wie gesellschaftlichen Opposition ihre Machtbereiche ausbauen und das Staatswesen tatsächlich umkrempeln. Dies im Falle beider Länder immer in Gegnerschaft zu jener Organisation, der sie unbedingt angehören wollten und angeblich auch immer noch angehören wollen – der EU.
Einige der behandelten Figuren haben sich letztlich – Bolsonaros Abwahl fand nach der Veröffentlichung des Buchs statt – dann doch an die demokratischen Regeln gehalten, wenn auch zähneknirschend; andere – Trump – verlieren sich in Verschwörungserzählungen, um sich ihre Niederlage nicht eingestehen zu müssen. Verschwörungsnarrative – aber das sei an dieser Stelle nur am Rande erwähnt – gehören bei allen hier behandelten Figuren zur Grundausstattung. Übrigens hat Benjamin Netanjahu, langjähriger Ministerpräsident Israels, den Rachman hier in seinem Kapitel über Mohammed bin Salman nebenbei ebenfalls als Strongman charakterisiert, nach seiner Niederlage bei den Wahlen 2021 ebenfalls das Verschwörungsnarrativ von den „geklauten Wahlen“ und einem „großen Betrug“ bemüht. Mittlerweile, man mag es kaum glauben, steht er vor einer Rückkehr an die Macht – mit einer noch rechteren Koalition, als jenen, die er früher schon schmiedete.
Andere, an vorderster Stelle Putin, beweisen, daß sie eher eskalieren werden, als in das Fahrwasser geordneter Demokratie zurückzukehren. Rachman weist im Vorwort auf Putins Einmarsch in der Ukraine im Februar 2022 hin, die eine letztgültige Abkehr von demokratischen, rechtsstaatlichen, internationales Recht gewährleistenden, Regeln bedeutet. Man kann daran auch erkennen, daß Rachmans Buch wirklich kurzfristig geschrieben und editiert wurde (was in der deutschen Ausgabe leider zu einer Unmenge von Fehlern geführt hat). Im Kielwasser dieses Krieges, so befürchten viele internationale Beobachter, könnte China, könnte Xi, sich entschließen, eine ähnliche „Annexion“ gegenüber Taiwan durchzuführen. Nur wurde Xi natürlich nie zum Staatschef gewählt, sondern hat sich innerhalb der Partei Geltung verschafft und sich, als er die Macht einmal erobert hatte, immer mehr Frei- und Machträume geschaffen, die ihn mittlerweile sogar auf Lebenszeit in seiner Stellung halten könnten.
Anders als im Falle Xis – und mittlerweile wohl auch Putins – ist es interessant, wie sehr die einmal demokratisch gewählten Strongmen darauf bedacht sind, zumindest die demokratische Fassade aufrecht zu erhalten. Sowohl Trump als auch Bolsonaro behaupteten ja, sie müssten eben diese sogar verteidigen gegen eine linke, woke Elite, die sie abschaffen wolle. Die meisten der hier aufgeführten Strongmen neigen nicht dazu, sich als Theoretiker hervorzutun. Putin gibt allerdings gern den Hobby-Historiker, der aufgrund eines mythischen Weltbilds beweisen zu können glaubt, daß es die Ukraine gar nicht gibt. Xi hat seine Ideen von Staat, Geschichte und Kommunismus gleich in die Verfassung aufnehmen lassen – eine Ehre, die bisher dem „großen Vorsitzenden“ Mao Zedong vorbehalten geblieben war. Und Victor Orbán gibt den Theoretiker, wenn er die Idee einer „illiberalen Demokratie“ vertritt, was immer das auch sein möge. Anders als bei dem Polen Kaczyński, dem man ebenfalls ein gewisses mythisch-mystisches Weltbild, gespeist aus dem speziellen Katholizismus polnischer Prägung, nachsagen kann, ist Orbáns Theorie-Versuch allerdings dadurch diskreditiert, daß die Korruption, die seine Regierung hervorgebracht hat und regelrecht fördert, zu durchschaubar ist.
Bleibt die Frage, ob ein Buch wie dieses wirklich einen Mehrwert hat? Es hat, kann man antworten, und sei es nur, daß es noch einmal einen Überblick verschafft. Einige Aussagen Rachmans sind schon jetzt von einer immer schnelleren Wirklichkeit überholt worden, aber das ist nun einmal das Schicksal „politischer“ Bücher, die sich einer Analyse der herrschenden Symptome widmen. Rachman gibt Einblicke, stellt Zusammenhänge dar und analysiert eine Wirklichkeit, der wir alle uns Tag für Tag ausgesetzt sehen, egal, ob wir das wollen oder nicht. Allerdings ist er sich auch nicht zu schade, immer wieder darauf zu verweisen, wann, wo und in welchen Situationen er viele der behandelten Herrscher und Herrschaften persönlich getroffen hat. Eitelkeit ist also eingepreist. Auch seine Hinweise, sich, wie so viele andere, einige Male geirrt zu haben, hindert ihn nicht daran, im Schlußwort erneut über die Entwicklungen der kommenden Jahre zu spekulieren. Es sei ihm gegönnt.
Ein Schmankerl allerdings bleibt, und man sollte es erwähnen: Mit Georgia Meloni wurde in Italien im Sommer 2022 eine erste StrongWOman an die Spitze eines europäischen Staates gewählt. Zeit also, das von allen Autokraten so verhasste Gendern auch auf sie selbst anzuwenden: Ab nun also sprechen wir von AutikratInnen. Hallelujah!
January 31, 2023
Este ensayo ofrece una visión general e introductoria del fenómeno de los líderes mundiales autócratas más importantes y cómo impulsan el proceso de "recesión" de las democracias actuales. Me ha gustado mucho el análisis sobre las bases ideológicas detrás de cada uno de ellos y el increíble aporte de experiencias personales del autor.
Lo considero un libro útil, para aquellos que no tengan mucho conocimiento acerca de los perfiles de estos personajes y los tipos de políticas que llevan a cabo en sus gobiernos. No es para nada un libro para expertos.
Creo que puede resultar muy interesante y relevante a raíz de la invasión de Ucrania y su reflexión final sobre Putin y cómo evolucionarán el resto de autocracias si este gana la guerra.
Lo considero un libro útil, para aquellos que no tengan mucho conocimiento acerca de los perfiles de estos personajes y los tipos de políticas que llevan a cabo en sus gobiernos. No es para nada un libro para expertos.
Creo que puede resultar muy interesante y relevante a raíz de la invasión de Ucrania y su reflexión final sobre Putin y cómo evolucionarán el resto de autocracias si este gana la guerra.
July 21, 2022
I’m a fan of Gideon Rachman’s writing. Most of the stories in the book are quite familiar, but still it’s fascinating (and worrying) to read about this mega trend in politics.
May 22, 2023
Interesting read, good introduction about the ideologies of the strongmen (or propaganda). Would be good if there could be more pricing insights into the those leaders before their ascension into powers.
May 15, 2022
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this brilliant and profoundly alarming book. Strongman leaders, Rachman suggests, tend to be pretty useless at leading. Rachman offers a “sharp analysis” of the strategies authoritarians have used to hold onto power – typically a combination of media manipulation, rigged elections, and populist rhetoric that positions them on the side of “ordinary people” against sinister global elites. Highly recommended!
December 11, 2022
A review/interview about the book by yours truly for The Daily Beast: https://www.thedailybeast.com/can-we-...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 133 reviews