We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
How to consolidate power by creating an enemy
As things become more unstable in the world with inflation and rising food prices, and commodity prices, there is going to be more and more appetite with strong leadership.
Part of the pushback against globalization has been led by autocrats who reject things like free trade and the liberal international order. For them, globalization means losing control.
But the world today remains more interconnected than ever. So, do they want less globalization, or rather a version that fits their narrative? On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer speaks to Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times, who wrote a book about the rise of the age of the strongmen.
A modern example of the strongman appeal are resentment at minority groups and how strongman leaders exploit that. Autocrats are generally not fond of minorities, yet resentment against them is always a good pitch to fire up the base, says Rachman.
Good examples are India's Narendra Modi, China's Xi Jinping, or the European far right with Muslims. But the European strongmen have not behaved the same way with Ukrainian migrants.
"It's pointless to deny that people are more likely to feel compassion for people who maybe look a bit like them," Rachman tells Ian Bremmer.
Countries representing more than half of the world's population — including China and India — are not on the anti-Russia bandwagon.
Why? For one thing, US hypocrisy after the war in Iraq. For another, many countries "simply don't want to return to a unipolar world.
The self-identification trap: how populists exploit emotions to gain support
Soon after Russia attacked Ukraine, the West proclaimed: we've united the world against Russia.
Wrong. Countries representing more than half of the world's population — including China and India — have not condemned the invasion.
Why? For one thing, US hypocrisy after the war in Iraq, says Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs columnist at the Financial Times tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
For another, he tells Ian Bremmer, many countries "simply don't want to return to a unipolar world."
Watch the GZERO World episode: The politics of resentment & how authoritarian strongmen gain power.
The politics of resentment & how authoritarian strongmen gain power
In recent years, part of the pushback against globalization has been led by autocrats who reject things like free trade and the liberal international order.
For them, globalization means losing control, which they don't like one bit. But the world today remains more interconnected than ever, particularly in cyberspace. So, do they want less globalization, or rather a version that fits their narrative?
On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer speaks to Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times who knows a thing or two about Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Donald Trump, and has just written a book about strongmen.
Rachman explains why resentment at minorities motivates both autocrats and their supporters, why strongmen use emotions to justify their nationalism and protectionism, and why Narendra Modi is the least bad of them right now.
Bonus: the global food crisis hits ... fish and chips.
- Authoritarianism's enduring appeal: Anne Applebaum discusses ... ›
- The “authoritarian honeymoon” is over, says John Kerry - GZERO ... ›
- What We'll Keep Watching in 2022: The authoritarian plague ... ›
- Podcast: How discontent with globalization has fueled authoritarian ... ›
- Democracy is resilient - but so is authoritarianism around the world - GZERO Media ›
Podcast: How discontent with globalization has fueled authoritarian "strongmen"
Listen: As inflation, including as seen in rising food and commodity prices, destabilize global systems, strong leadership will appeal to more people. Part of the pushback against globalization has been led by autocrats who reject ideas like free trade and the liberal international order. Globalization is seen to equate losing control. But the world today remains more interconnected than ever. So, do those expressing discontent want less globalization, or rather a version that fits their narrative? And, after two years of unrelenting pandemic, continued rise in global temperatures, and a war in Ukraine that is not ending, has globalization benefited the world?
On the GZERO World Podcast, Ian Bremmer speaks to Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times, who knows a thing or two about the likes of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, or Donald Trump, and has just written a book about strongmen. Rachman explains why resentment at minorities motivates both autocrats and their supporters, why strongmen use emotions to justify their nationalism and protectionism, and why Narendra Modi is the least bad of them right now.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.Strongmen heart this pandemic
Every crisis creates an opportunity for somebody, and a global pandemic can be a great one for strongmen (or aspiring ones.) Around the world, states of emergency, lockdowns, and restrictions on information are creating a perfect opportunity for big power grabs, particularly in countries with weak or non-existent democracies.
So, let's say you, on this fine pandemic Wednesday, are an autocrat — or at least an aspiring one. Here are a few reasons why you might be excited about the pandemic, and few things to worry about before summoning your lackeys for a crackdown party.
Pandemics can boost your power, and fast. Controlling the spread of a disease naturally requires broad state powers to restrict movement, commerce, and information. You can now push through new emergency laws that give you virtually unchecked power. And if you're smart, like Hungary's "illiberal" Prime Minister Viktor Orban, you'll leave them open-ended.
Here's a good excuse to stifle criticism. Fake news is a killer during public health crises, when people need timely and accurate information about outbreaks and government responses. But "fakeness" is often in the eye of the beholder. Stiff new penalties for spreading vaguely-defined "panic" or "misinformation" in Russia, Turkey, the Philippines, and Hungary have sent a chill through the press in those countries more broadly.
Protests are less likely and easier to control. Who wants to be with thousands of shouting people right now? Six months ago, protest movements were sizzling all over the world – now it's crickets in the streets. All but your hardiest or most creative opponents will stay home. And you can use (real) public health concerns to prohibit or quash any demonstrations.
What's this about contact tracing and surveillance? Needless to say, you are very excited about using contact-tracing and facial recognition tools to do more than just track a virus. Even the world's leading democracies are going down this path – with privacy guardrails that are less of a concern for you — and it's a great excuse to build out better ways to surveil and control your people (and your opponents).
All that said, a national health emergency also poses real risks for you. Consider:
The buck really stops with you. Those coronavirus numbers aren't going to reduce themselves. If they rise too high, you can try to blame subordinates or outsiders. But in the end, the more power you assume, the more you're on the hook if things go badly.
Cracking down on speech or journalists is a double-edged sword. If you stifle the flow of accurate, widely-sourced information about outbreaks and your government's response, you can end up making dumb mistakes – or bad recommendations - like the president of Belarus.
How competent are your lackeys again? To tackle a health crisis you need capable bureaucrats to execute complex plans. But if you – like most strongmen – have chosen your ministers and governors more for loyalty than competence, they'll quickly face problems that force them to choose between protecting the public's health and protecting the leader's authority.
In short, a pandemic offers you great opportunities – but how lucky do you feel?