Russian president Putin in Yekaterinburg

Why Are Illiberal Democrats Popular?

Aug 2, 2017 Daniel Gros

Illiberal leaders like Russia's Vladimir Putin, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Hungary's Viktor Orbán have managed to concentrate power without losing popular support. As their mounting authoritarianism undermines prudent economic policies, however, they will find it increasingly difficult to keep the electorate happy.

BRUSSELS – The rise of “illiberal democracy” in Europe is one of the most baneful trends of our time. These regimes are typically centered on a leader who concentrates power by overriding – and in some cases eliminating – institutional checks and balances. Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán represent three of the most visible manifestations of this phenomenon. But what is really noteworthy – and dangerous – is how these regimes have been able to retain popular support.

Control over traditional media, like television, radio and newspapers, is of course one reason why these regimes maintain their electoral majorities. But manipulation, or even outright control, of the media cannot explain the enduring popularity, borne out by opinion polls, of illiberal leaders.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 14 in all 14 Comments on this article

Bernard Fudim Aug 7, 2017

Putin has retained his strength because he represents for Russian people the return of importance in the world, and the great empire it was under the Tzars.
Erdogan has retained his strength because he represents the change in the constitutio,n to make it a Constitutional Democracy, and a return to Moslem customs, and dress codes. There are also rumors of payments for votes. In addition Turkey is the most important member of NATO, and the EU and America will not undermine his government.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Aug 4, 2017

You also have to take into account history and culture. Russia: Except for a very brief period Russia has never known democracy. Since the days of the Czars they were governed by autocrats, including the autocratic communist regimes. I believe there is no people in the world who have sufferd so much at the hands of their own leaders as the Russians. When Poetin came to power, after the collapse of communism, Russia was a total chaos. Poetin did a succesful job in restoring the country. It cannot be a surprise that Poetin is popular, although he is sometimes doing things that we in the West do not approve of.
Turkey: After the collapse of the Ottoman empire, after WW1, their leader Ataturk set Turkey on a course of modernisation and secularisation. In the past two decades the Islamic parties ( Turkey is 96 % moslim ) have gained power, resulting in Erdogan becoming leader. He is changing course to the Islamic religion and culture. Islam has values which do not accomodate with the values in a western democracy. Nevertheless that is what the majority of the Turkeys people obviously want. In addition Erdogan has also done much for the economy of his country.
So, autocratic regimes are supported by more factors than just economic ones and this makes any change complex.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Aug 4, 2017

DEMOCRACY IN DIFFERENT DYES
The transparency demanded by the bastions of liberal democracy - require bulwarks that produce solid economics.
Satisfied Voters in Solid Economics - have been successively crafted, after comprehension of the Rules of liberal democracy.
Limitations that prohibited the blossoming of Satisfied Voters in Solid Economics - were first understood by President DeGaulle in 1971.
Despite the demolition of the Dollar Standard that DeGaulle - Brussels became the Biggest Bastion of "Satisfied Voters in Solid Economics".
The Oil Moghuls followed by creating their Bastion of Satisfied Voters in Solid Economics - OPEC 1973.
China understood the limitations of Bretton Woods, yet crafted the next Bastion of Satisfied Voters in Solid Economics - APEC 1989.
With the collapse of USSR 1991, Eastern Europe passage to Economic Development had only One Option - The West.
Once they were able to enter "The Expanded West" - breaking the Rules of liberal democracy was easy.
With Security guaranteed by NATO and Economics guaranteed by The EU - The East didn't even need Oil to succeed.
Democracy comes in different dyes - Perfection of Wisdom never the monopoly of America Britain Canada or France Germany Italy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Aug 3, 2017

Daniel Gros takes a look at Russia, Turkey and Hungary and explains how "illiberal" leaders like Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Viktor Orban gained electoral support and "remain popular." At least for a while, before their authoritarian rule comes back to bite them.
The author says the control of media and the manipulation of public opinion alone doesn't help them retain popularity, but - as Bill Clinton once coined - "It's the economy, stupid." Gros points out that regardless of their anti-Western stance, Putin, Erdogan and Orban have "followed the so-called Washington Consensus, which prescribes prudent macroeconomic policies and open markets." Despite their "nationalist rhetoric" they refrain from protectionist policies - Russia still appreciates its WTO membership, Hungary its EU membership and Turkey its customs union with the EU.
The three autocrats are no doubt astute opportunists. They rose to power by capitalising on their predecessors' failure to tackle economic woes and popular grievances to win trust. Once elected they pursue "prudent macroeconomic policies" that deliver growth. They hire "apolitical experts" and competent technocrats to oversee macroeconomic management, and to "deliver better economic performance in the long run." Winning hearts and minds is their formula to remain in office.
Indeed, "an efficient long-term strategy for regime preservation" is to adopt conservative fiscal and monetary policies that ensure economic stability. Populist leaders rely heavily on "identity politics to maintain electoral dominance." What they all seek to avoid is to shower social largesse. Excessive spending often creates a financail crisis that forces them to "seek assistance" from international organisations. Under the International Monetary Fund's austerity regime "their days in power will be numbered."
The collapse of Venezuela's economy is a vivid example for bad autocracy. Oil wealth allowed Hugo Chavez to squander billions of dollars on bribing voters at home and winning allies abroad. Nicolas Maduro sought to continue his predecessor's leagcy, only to find himself short of cash to uphold the irrational and wasteful spending, while struggling with dwindling oil revenues. On the whole public debt in Hungary, Russia and Turkey "is thus either already low or (as in Hungary) declining," which is enviable.
However living standards for ordinary Russians have declined due to falling oil prices and Western sanctions, and the economic outlook is "bleak." During the first half of Erdogan's rule, Turkey's economy was impressive and robust despite stagnation in Europe, after the 2008 financial crisis. The war in neighbouring Syria has taken a toll on growth. Since the botched coup in July 2016, assets and businesses belonging to alleged sympathisers of the coup - said to be orchestrated by Fethullah Gülen - had been seized by Turkish authorities. They have been "placed under the administration of Erdoğan’s close associates."
The author points out the "longer-term challenge" for autocrats "to keep their illiberal political regimes economically liberal." These leaders often surround themselves with loyalists and are distrustful of outsiders. This paranoia breeds cronyism, which creates a government by the few - oligarchy or plutocracy. Once this power structure sets in, rampant corruption flourishes. "When this happens, growth is bound to decline," as "entrepreneurs will stop investing."
In order to avoid the vicious circle of political instability, illiberal leaders resort to repressive measures - censorship, rule by decree etc. - to consolidate power. They don't tolerate dissent and call for brutal crackdowns on protesters. Citizens' fundamental rights are being suspended, and journalists harassed or jailed.
The author says, "once an illiberal regime has started down this road, it cannot easily re-establish a credible commitment to respect property rights, because the institutions that ensure this in liberal democracies, like an independent judiciary and a professional civil service, no longer exist." Orban is biting the EU hand that feeds him. He had vacuumed up Hungary's assets, lining either his or his cronies' pockets, hollowing out his country's fragile institutions, and flouting EU laws. He shouldn't get away with impunity.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Emanuel Müller Aug 3, 2017

There is a nice continental rainbow from east to west. From far east to far west we have hyper-strong man Xi Jinping, than super-strong man Vladimir Putin, than strong man Orban, Erdogan and mates, than strong woman Merkel and buddy strong woman May, than finally, at the very far west we have weak man Macron that can be speculated as weak as there is a sizeable probability that he is dominated by his twenty five years older wife. The stereotype that this rainbow might be interpreted as representing is that the east side is more about male/fatherly wisdom while the west is more about female/motherly love.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Emre Berkay Aug 2, 2017

Okay first things first, it's about time we drop this senseless terminology. These people aren't (and weren't) democrats, even if it's simply because we have no way to tell what they would do in a free and fair election. Being a democrat entails that you follow all tenets of democracy, not just popular support. These rulers are, at best, popular autocrats who bastardize democratic process.
The faulty terminology mostly stems from "end of the history" discourse that claimed "liberal democracy" had become hegemonic. The juxtaposition of "liberalism" and "democracy", as if they are inseparable, deliberately or not, reflected the neoliberal viewpoint of the time, and it still does, even while neoliberalism is in shambles. Far from being hegemonic, liberal democracy, as an ideology, is not even prevalent in the West. It's basic, pols101 knowledge that liberalism has two equally important dimensions, social and economic. What does that mean? It means that most of the Western ruling parties already are/ have been illiberal. Conservatives are socially illiberal, socialists are economically illiberal and so on, but they remain (mostly) committed to the democratic process. Hence they are the real illiberal democrats, not the ones that utilize democracy as a means to establish autocracy. Liberal democracy mostly lives through center-left parties (eg Democrats in the US, Blairite Labour -but definitely not Conservatives or Republican)This may seem to be a minor point, but it is simply wrong to refer them as democrats, they are nothing more than a menace to their country and other democratic countries. And no, they are not even democratically elected, see the latest referendum in Turkey, Erdogan -as it's documented many times- lost it, but was able to retain the power through state apparatus.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kamil Bayye Aug 2, 2017

Chavez was reckless in spending because he was advised by stupid Marxists who know how to critique capitalism, but have no idea how to run a modern economy. He also did not have the option of playing identity politics like the other three countries discussed here.
- Steve Hurst Aug 4, 2017
  
  Kamil
  
  Its the wrong sort of oil. So despite sitting on loads of it Venezuela has to export it and then import different oil
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Kamil Bayye Aug 3, 2017
  
  Hi John,
  Thank you for the explanation. But, why can't Venezuela develop the capacity to refine petroleum? Is it that difficult?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- John Brian Shannon Aug 3, 2017
  
  Hi Kamil,
  
  The Venezuelan problem can best be illustrated by the following construct:
  
  For decades, Venezuela sold petrol (gasoline) to citizens for the equivalent of 5 cents per gallon (even now!) via heavy subsidization from the government.
  
  Therefore, Venezuelans learned to be very wasteful with petrol -- and came to feel that low petrol prices were part of their birthright as citizens of Venezuela.
  
  Once Venezuela lost the ability to refine its own oil into petrol and other useful fuels/products, it was forced to meet consumer demand by shipping Venezuelan crude to America (at the world oil price) and then buy it back in the form of petrol for citizens (at the world gasoline price) which is a hugely expensive proposition.
  
  As it went on, Venezuelan government surpluses turned into deficits, and low government debt turned into high government debt via the accumulated deficits.
  
  And all of this occurred because a long time ago (prior to Chavez) Venezuelan leaders didn't have the moxie to stand up to voters and tell them that 5 cent per gallon petrol was unsustainable.
  
  We should always lay the blame at the feet of the people who actually caused the problem. Venezuelan president Chavez and his successor president Nicolás Maduro were/are forced to deal with the symptoms of previous bad policies -- they weren't the cause of it.
  
  To put a fine point on it; "Who wants to inform Venezuelan citizens that petrol will no longer cost 5 cents per gallon, it will now move to the world price?"
  
  Someone must do that soon -- heavy subsidies are killing the Venezuelan economy, and it will end in the complete ruination of the country. If not Maduro, the next leader of Venezuela -- or there won't be a country left to lead.
  
  http://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/
  
  Best regards, JBS
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Aug 2, 2017

The flip question has to be asked as referred to by John Brian below
eg
Why are their predecessors unpopular. Bearing in mind oppositions do not win in elections, incumbents - who hold the advantage - lose
- John Brian Shannon Aug 3, 2017
  
  Hi Steve,
  
  Thank you for your support on my point (and as always) your clarifications, which are always welcome.
  
  In the absence of a 2-term limit for leaders, there is no reason good enough that incumbent politicians should ever lose an election. (The problem isn't with the electorate, but with the incumbents)
  
  As always, best regards, JBS
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Aug 2, 2017

Hi Daniel,

I'm all for checks and balances, please don't get me wrong. But the rise of illiberal regimes didn't occur in a vacuum. These populist leaders rose up because of the deficiencies of the leaders they replaced.

Blind obedience to the gods of globalization (which has been a very great thing for the world in general terms, but due to the careless disregard of the bottom-two quintile groups by the then-extant leaders, illiberal leaders were practically ordered into office by disaffected voters) and blind obedience to the gods of consumerism, and blind obedience shown to the banksters, are the reasons illiberals are in charge.

As the bottom-two economic quintiles (and soon enough, the bottom-three economic quintile groups) feel that the system is rigged against them, more and more illiberal regimes will rise.

And that's a healthy and normal state of affairs -- if it doesn't get too carried away with itself.

Back to the checks and balances you mentioned in your opening paragraph:

The simplest solution to the concerns you raise about populist regimes 'taking it too far' is, of course, two-term limits for all heads of government (presidents, prime ministers, premiers, etc. as a global standard among democratic nations -- whether constitutional monarchy, republics, parliamentary democracies, and even among benevolent dictatorships -- written right into the constitution of every country.

I suggest that liberal democracies sponsor this through the offices of the United Nations and that countries that accede to such a proposed agreement gain some benefit from the UN and from the other signatories to the agreement.

I'd even suggest that such signatory nations get slightly better terms from the IMF and from the UNDP, etc.

MORE illiberal leaders are coming! The thing to do NOW, is to get those two-term limits for all Members of Parliament, Senators, President's, Prime Minister's, Premiers, etc. legislated NOW -- rather than trying to get it done at the last minute, or worse, trying to get it done once the illiberal regimes are in power (talk about trying to swim upstream!)

I strongly agree with the points you've raised in your fine essay. Thanks for posting at ProSyn!

As always, very best regards, JBS
- Walter Gingery Aug 3, 2017
  
  I agree, in theory, but in practice those in power always seem to find a way to defeat term limits. Time after time they go back to "the people" to get the term limits raised, generally employing reasoning along the line of " there's still too much left to do," or "the (fill in the blank) have not been defeated yet." (See Harald James' post "Extraordinary Measures for Ordinary Times" under the "Economics" section.)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/WdxwkvT

Cookies and Privacy

Why Are Illiberal Democrats Popular?

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Venezuela’s Unprecedented Collapse

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

Why Are Illiberal Democrats Popular?

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification