The consequences of the Kremlin's success or defeat will be global.
A few weeks before Russia 's invasion of Ukraine, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban visited Vladimir Putin in Moscow. Other meetings with Western leaders have been tense and conflicted. But the atmosphere of the conversation with the Hungarian leader was almost cheerful.
Orbán's government was in the process of confronting the EU over accusations of undermining democracy and the rule of law in its country.
“Times are tough, but we are in very good company,” Orban told a closing news conference, making Putin laugh.
According to the Financial Times, the Hungarian prime minister has already become the EU's longest-serving leader. He boasted of his numerous meetings with Putin.
“I am not going to resign. I hope that we will be able to work together for many years to come, “Orban said.
His expectations of a relatively long rule in Hungary are likely to come true this weekend. The Fidesh Party, led by him, has a good chance of winning the election with full control of the electoral system and the media. Because of this control, the Freedom House think tank considers Hungary a “partly free” country.
The Hungarian elections and Orban's dominance in them reminds us that the authoritarian style of politics, closely associated with Putin, has supporters around the world, even in Western democracies. Since 2000, the rise of authoritarian leaders has been a central feature of global politics. In Moscow, Beijing, New Delhi, Ankara, Budapest, Manila, Washington, Riyadh and Brazil, authoritarian leaders (oddly enough, each male) were able to gain power.
Usually such leaders are nationalists or cultural conservatives who are intolerant of minorities, dissent or the interests of foreigners. At home, they insist on defending the “common man” against “globalist” elites. Abroad, they position themselves as the embodiment of their nations. And wherever they go, they try to cultivate their cult of personality.
Read also: Czech Foreign Ministry advises Russian diplomats to “leave sinking ship”
“It is possible that the failure of the Russian invasion of Ukraine will forever discredit the authoritarian style of politics. But these hopes must be balanced by the understanding that this movement and political style over the past 20 years have already taken deep roots, “the article reads.
The era of autocrats began on December 31, 1999, when Putin was sworn in as Russia's president. It is very symbolic that he came to power at the beginning of the 21st century. He thus became the archetype of a new kind of authoritarian ruler who would change global politics over the next generation. Over the next 20 years, the Russian leader became an immortal symbol and even an inspiration to a generation of dictators who admired his nationalism, audacity, violent rhetoric, and contempt for “political correctness.”
In 2003, Recep Tayyip Erdogan became Prime Minister of Turkey. A year later in Brussels, he promoted Turkey's application for EU membership. When asked about a possible protest against Turkish membership, he gave a well-adapted response to the feelings of Western leaders.
“If the EU wants to become a Christian club and not a union based on common values, then let its answer be 'no,'” Erdogan said.
Eighteen years after Erdogan shares the EU's liberal values, it seems absurd to both the people of Turkey and Brussels. In recent years, the Turkish president has become increasingly authoritarian and sharply anti-Western in his rhetoric. He has imprisoned journalists and political opponents and now runs the country from a huge new palace built for him in Ankara.
Something similar happened to Xi Jinping. In 2013, a year after being elected leader of the Communist Party of China, he met with Western journalists at the National Assembly House in Beijing. His message was deliberately reassuring. He spoke calmly against the background of the drawing of the Great Wall of China behind him.
“The assertion that strong countries tend to seek hegemony does not apply to China,” he said.
But a year later, China began building military bases in the disputed waters of the South China Sea. At home, Xi Jinping abandoned the model of collective governance and began to build a cult of personality around “Uncle Xi.” The transition to authoritarian rule was consolidated when in 2018 China lifted restrictions on the time allowed for the presidency. Now, potentially, Xi Jinping can rule the country to death. When the difference between the state and the leader is blurred, the refusal to hand over power to the successor becomes the crowning feature of authoritarian rule. Putin and Erdogan also changed the constitution of their countries so that they could not leave the throne. Donald Trump has repeatedly “joked” that the United States should also change its constitution. So he could stay president for longer than two terms. His refusal to recognize electoral defeat directly led to an attempt by Trump supporters to storm the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Authoritarians need to be considered indispensable. We need to convince the people that only they can save everyone. The blurring of the distinction between leader and state makes a change of government deadly or unacceptable. Authoritarian leaders often justify their brutal methods by arguing that their countries are in such a deep crisis that they can no longer afford to uphold liberal ideals such as the rule of law. They also often play on the deep fear of the dominant majority of losing their status due to great economic and cultural losses.
In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's BJP party has warned of a so-called “love jihad.” They say that Muslims will deprive Hindu Indians of dominance, eroding society through marriage. Orbán complained about migrants allegedly threatening the survival of the Hungarian people. The prospect of “minorities dominating” in the United States as early as 2045 has helped increase social and racial tensions that have helped Trump win the election. The desire to “deal” with foreigners or minorities, such as migrants or Muslims, is an integral part of the attractiveness of autocrats. Their macho poses embody their traditional ideas of a male power that despises feminism and LGBT rights. Putin has successfully cultivated support among cultural conservatives in the West, regularly condemning false “political correctness” and focusing on the rights of homosexual men and women.
Read also: Russia has successfully stimulated pro-Russian sentiment in China – The Guardian
In 2019, answering a question about Putin's view of the essence of Western liberalism, one of the ideologues of “Putinism” Konstantin Malofeev said: “The lack of borders between countries and the differences between men and women.” But perhaps the most powerful common factor among all autocrats is nostalgic nationalism. Each in their own way, but they all use Trump's famous promise to “make America great again.” Xi Jinping spoke of the “great rebirth of the Chinese people,” which was essentially a promise to make China “great again.” In India, Mode led the nationalist movement, appealing to Hindu pride and a somewhat mythologized past to the British and Mongol empires.
However, the most dangerous form of nostalgic nationalism was built by the creator of modern authoritarianism, Putin. The invasion of Ukraine was the logical culmination of many of the worst aspects of authoritarian rule: it appealed to a fictional national emergency requiring radical action, glorified force and violence, despised liberalism and the law, and personalized its rule against criticism or counter-proposals.
“Because Putin has been an archetype for many authoritarian rulers who have followed in his footsteps, the consequences of his success or failure will be global. The Western response to the Russian invasion was faster and more powerful than Putin expected. This, combined with Russia's military difficulties, raises hopes that he and his authoritarian style will be permanently discredited by the war in Ukraine, “the article reads.
These hopes are justified. But it should be noted that other members of the “dictatorial international” stubbornly remain neutral in this war. They refuse to condemn Putin, but strictly abide by international sanctions. Modi's silent observers include Jair Bolsonara in Brazil and even Trump, who praised Putin as a strategy genius on the day the invasion of Ukraine began. Neutrality is maintained by Putin's most important ally, Xi Jinping, who met with him in Beijing a few weeks before the war. And then there is Orban. The Hungarian leader is enforcing EU sanctions against Russia. However, in Kiev he is accused of blocking the supply of weapons to the Ukrainian army and taking a “frankly pro-Russian position.” Ukrainian MP Iryna Vereshchuk even suspected that Orban had his own claims to Ukrainian territory. And he secretly “dreams of our Transcarpathia.”
Such concerns reflect the fact that authoritarian rule has historically been associated with violence, conquest and international anarchy. The dictators of the 1930s, including Mussolini, Franco, Stalin and Hitler, dragged their countries and the world into bloody wars. Putin is now repeating this deadly pattern. His invasion of Ukraine finally provoked the United States and the European Union to resist authoritarianism. Biden provoked a wave of criticism, saying in Poland: “Lord, this man can not stay in power.” But the American president's words were an expression of his conviction that the world is once again involved in the decisive battle between authoritarianism and democracy.
There are good reasons to believe that liberal democracy will win in the world. Authoritarianism is a pathologically imperfect model. It cannot solve the problem of heredity. In addition, it lacks a balance of power and scrutiny that allows democracies to reject failed policies and rules. The longer a dictator is in power, the more likely he is to fall into paranoia and megalomania.
Putin's decision to attack Ukraine exacerbates this danger. But it is very difficult to snatch power from the hands of dictators. The era of authoritarianism has lasted for more than a generation. There will be even more upheaval and suffering before she is gone.
