:
A spectre is haunting the world— the spectre of authoritarian
nationalism. All the powers of old neoliberal order have entered into a holy
alliance to exorcise this spectre: Democrats and Republicans, Koch brothers and
Soros, French socialists and American conservatives, Silicon Valley technocrats
and Hollywood actors. Two things result
from this fact:
1. Authoritarian nationalism is already acknowledged by all world
powers to be itself a power; and
2. It is widely perceived as a threat to democracy and the
liberal order, only 20 or so years after democracy and liberalism had been
proclaimed the end of history to which there was no alternative.
How can we explain this sudden shift in the winds of
history?
If we were to believe the American political establishment,
the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, NPR and the American and British
intelligence services, this shift has been orchestrated by a small group of
Russian internet trolls personally directed by Putin. In this narrative, most people are incorrigible
dupes unable to think on their own and easily manipulated by professional advertisers
and opinion leaders. The emergence of
the social media created an opportunity for the Russian trolls who upstaged the
professional advertisers and opinion manipulators by a sneak attack consisting
of spreading fake news on the internet.
And voila, here goes the democracy, courtesy of Mr. Putin.
The fact that otherwise serious and respectable media
outlets stoop to such way-out-in-left-field conspiracy theories tells us something
very important – that the professional and managerial classes that form the
backbone of the neoliberal political establishment have a hard time to accept
that this shift is a response to popular demand. After all, there was supposed be no
alternative to the brave new neoliberal world, so what we see must be the work
of some clever manipulators trying to stop the clock.
However, if we acknowledge that this recourse to illiberal
authoritarian nationalism meets popular demand, we are back to our original question
“How can we explain this sudden shift in public sentiments?”
To answer this question, a good place to start is to listen
to what the authoritarian nationally are actually saying to their
supporters. Since authoritarian
nationalism has established itself in a number of culturally diverse countries
across the world, from Turkey, to Russia, to the Philippines, to Israel, to Poland,
to Hungary to Austria, and to the United States, and it made substantial
advancement in most other European countries, the key task is to uncover
commonalities beneath this cultural diversity.
This common theme is the promise of stability amidst chaos unleashed by
the neoliberal globalization. The call
for stability frequently appears in messages form authoritarian nationalistic
leaders, Putin in Russia, Karimov in Uzbekistan, Orban in Hungary, Duarte in
the Philippines, Erdogan in Turkey, and Trump in the US, as well as prominent
right wing intellectuals (cf. Jordan Peterson, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos).
How can we explain this emergence of popular demand for
stability? It turns out that sociology has an answer to this question. Karl Polanyi (The Great Transformation) argued that industrialization and the laissez
faire market economy it unleashed in the 19th century uprooted the
traditional social order and social institutions, and social dislocation of a
great mass of people. In response to
this upheaval, social movements emerged to counteract this upheaval and re-establish
social order and stability. This
resulted in the popular demand for social protections, which socialist and
social democratic parties promised to deliver.
This argument is the core of current narratives, popular
especially on the Left, explaining the raise of authoritarian nationalism. The neoliberal market model, this argument
goes, reduced a vast number of people to the precariat status, producing anxiety
about uncertain future and a demand for stability. The traditional socialist and social
democratic parties, which had embraced the neoliberal model, were unable to effectively
respond to this popular demand. This
created a window of opportunity for right wing and nationalist parties that
offered a promise of stability in exchange for accepting their xenophobic, misogynist,
racist and authoritarian ideology.
However, this argument tells only half of the story. The part that is left untold is the enormous popularity
of liberal ideologies promising personal liberty and freedom in the 1960s and
1970s, which, according to David Harvey (A
Brief History of Neoliberalism) was the popular force behind the growth of
neoliberalism in the 1980s. If we take
the second half of the story into account, a picture that emerges is that of
cyclical changes in demand for freedom followed by demand for stability.
This tension between freedom and social stability was first
introduced by Emile Durkheim (Suicide)
to explain variations in suicide rates in different countries. In Durkheim’s explanation, suicide results
from an imbalance of two social forces: social integration and moral regulation. Too much integration and regulation can lead
to individuals committing suicide for altruistic (sacrifice for the group) or
fatalistic (despair caused by excessive regulation and oppressive
discipline). Too little integration and regulation
can lead to egoistic or anomic suicide, or (respectively) suicide in response
to despair produced by a sense of not belonging or being integrated in a
community, or moral confusion and lack of social direction related to dramatic
social changes and economic upheaval.
While Durkheim’s argument has been criticized on various grounds, its
lasting contribution is the conceptual framework positioning societies and
communities on a continuum ranging from “too little” to “too much” social
integration.
Within this conceptual framework, modern history can be
portrayed as a movement away from excessive social integration (pre-industrial
society), toward excessive liberalization (19th century
industrialization), and then back toward stability and integration (welfare
state in the mid 20th century), than again back toward liberalization
(the 1960s countercultural evolution and 1980s neoliberalism) and then back again
toward demands for greater security and integration (the emergence or
authoritarian nationalism in the 21st century). An important takeaway from this conceptualization
is that the political party that senses which way the wind is blowing and is
able to meet popular demand for freedom or stability wins the day. The party that fails to see the change or is
unable to meet the popular demand gets kicked out from the halls of power.
The second important takeaway from this conceptualization is
that not every party that promises deliverance from the current excesses of
liberalization or stability can carry the day.
That promise has to be credible i.e. offer a genuine alternative to the
status quo, and legitimate i.e. consistent with fundamental norms and values
shared in a society or community. A
promise that is not credible i.e. too incoherent or insufficiently different
from the status quo, or illegitimate i.e. too inconsistent or contradicting the
shared norms and values has little chance of gaining popular support.
It is clear that the promise of the authoritarian
nationalist parties and their intellectual backers is both credible and
legitimate. Their credibility is
achieved by offering solutions that are on the opposite pole to that offered by
neoliberalism: nationalism vs. globalism, traditional gender roles vs. sexual liberation,
protectionism vs. free market, strengthening vs. weakening of authority, closed
borders vs. open society. Their
legitimacy is achieved by portraying their positions as “common sense” and “pragmatic”
solutions vs. “radical” proposals of their opposition. This is further achieved by distancing
themselves , at least in appearance, from the radical elements within their own
ranks, such as extreme racism, antisemitism, misogyny or calls for violence (c.f.
Stefanie Ehmsen and Albert Scharenberg, eds, The Far Right in Government: Six Cases from Across Europe).
Given the popular demand for stability and the perceived credibility
and legitimacy of authoritarian nationalism, it is unreasonable to expect that
its appeal will wane, especially is no viable alternatives are present. Neoliberals may temporarily halt its progress
here and there, as Macron did in France, but authoritarian nationalism is here
to stay here for a while. The only
question is what can be done about it.
The emergence of democratic socialism as an alternative to
both neoliberalism and authoritarian nationalism is a promising sign, but it is
not ready for the prime time at the time of this writing. The chief reason is shortcomings in the
credibility and legitimacy areas.
The credibility of democratic socialism is undermined by the
fact that it does not offer a coherent vision that is sufficiently different
from both the status quo and the authoritarian nationalist pitch. A cursory survey of opinions published by self-identified
supporters of socialism or democratic socialism reveals a wide range of
demands, ranging from very moderate and similar to those proposed by mainstream
Democrats (minimum wage, protection of social safety programs, ending racism
and police brutality), to somewhat more radical proposed by progressive Democrats
(single payer health care system or tuition-free higher education), to
supposedly even more radical but vague and nondescript ideas borrowed from
socialist programs of the past (e.g. nationalization of the means of
production). It is clear that those most
radical but very vague proposals do not appear very credible to anyone but the true
believers. As to the more moderate ones,
they are hard to distinguish from those entertained by the Democratic Party. This also poses a credibility challenge as
well, since Democrats are widely perceived as the key architects of the
neoliberal order who betrayed the working class.
As to the legitimacy challenge, this mainly comes from the
historical baggage associated with the word socialism. Real or perceived failures of systems labeled
‘socialist’ in countries like Russia, Poland, Hungary, China, Cuba, etc. have
been significantly amplified in concert by right-wing, conservative, and neoliberal
propaganda and portrayed as fundamentally antithetical to “Western” values
(free market, personal liberties, democracy).
As a result, many if not most people would dismiss anything that smacks of
socialism without even giving it a serious thought.
To overcome these challenges, democratic socialism must come
up with a credible, legitimate and clear message that can appeal to a broad
range of people. “Make America Great
Again” is a good example of such a message.
It is clear, it encapsulates the essence of authoritarian nationalist message
– “people are suffering from chaos and demand return to earlier, simpler times”
– and it is legitimate as it affirms the primacy of the American nation. It is also hollow, because it says nothing
what “great” really means, leaving it to the audience’s imagination. This message echoes equally hollow messages of
other authoritarian nationalist parties, e.g. “Law and Justice” (Poland), “Illiberal
democracy” (Hungary), or “Justice and development” (Turkey).
One possible message of the democratic socialism is “Stability
and Freedom,” Bothe concepts well
resonate with people, but unlike the hollow and vague promise of “making
America great again” they are imbued with concrete meaning. Stability means stable communities and social
protections from negative effects of economic development. Such protections may range from providing
universal healthcare that frees families from the vagaries of employment, to safe
and livable neighborhoods, and to communities deciding what kind of economic
development they want to have instead of relying on the whims of the
wealthy. Freedom means the absence of
unnecessary constraints, government regulations, and police surveillance, as
well as the ability to achieve one’s full potential and dreams, instead of
following dictates of corporate workplace.
Even more importantly, a message promising stability and
freedom offers a vision of a just society that balances these two social needs
instead of pitting one against the other.
The concept of balance is well embedded in the political and moral philosophy,
going back to Aristotle. It also offers
an alternative to the extremism of modern political gladiator fights in which
people throw mud at each other but nobody listens.
