Comments 8

Las trampas del populismo autoritario

Jan 6, 2017 Sergei Guriev

LONDRES – El año 2016 mostró que la durabilidad de la democracia liberal ya no puede darse por sentada, ni siquiera en Occidente. De hecho, el análisis que hace el politólogo Yascha Mounk (de la Universidad de Harvard) de los datos de la Encuesta Mundial de Valores muestra que en muchos países occidentales, la confianza de la opinión pública en la democracia viene cayendo hace bastante tiempo.

¿Cómo se explica esta tendencia? Los cimbronazos políticos de 2016 hacen pensar que muchas personas están frustradas por la inacción de las democracias y creen que no se están abordando con la decisión necesaria cuestiones como el estancamiento salarial, el desempleo, la desigualdad, la inmigración y el terrorismo. Los sistemas políticos de los países democráticos parecen sumidos en un estado de sopor permanente, lo que impulsa a los votantes a apoyar a líderes fuertes, que prometen terminar con la parálisis política y barrer toda resistencia burocrática a la implementación de nuevas políticas audaces.

Estos líderes (que aseguran ser los únicos capaces de resolver los problemas de sus países) suelen proceder del mundo corporativo. Mucha gente considera que un ejecutivo exitoso es alguien capaz de cumplir objetivos bien definidos, de modo que un hombre de negocios podrá resolver problemas sociales que eludirán a un político.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Featured

The Despot and the Diplomat

Jun 20, 2018 Christopher R. Hill
Why Host the World Cup?

Jun 20, 2018 Andrew Zimbalist
Nationalism Will Go Bankrupt

Jun 20, 2018 Anatole Kaletsky
Why Markets and Political Scientists Disagree on the G7

Jun 19, 2018 Mohamed A. El-Erian
Can the Euro Be Saved?

Jun 13, 2018 Joseph E. Stiglitz

0 Comments on this paragraph, 8 in all 8 Comments on this article

j. von Hettlingen Jan 9, 2017

Sergei Guriev says the cult of strongman leadership is on the rise and points out its "pitfalls." As ordinary citizens have enough of sluggish economic growth, dwindling income, chronic unemployment, widening inequalities, they blame the political establishment and financial elites for ignoring their grievances and not tackling problems "decisively enough." They are fed up with political correctness, which fuels popular demand for "strong leaders who promise to smash through political gridlock and sweep away bureaucratic resistance to bold new policies."
With liberal democracy being on the wane, it creates a "state of torpor," allowing populists to exploit the sense of insecurity and fear that issues like immigration and terrorism bring about, to endorse illiberal policies and values. Business leaders, who know about the art of rhetoric often do well as populists. They know how to reach out to disaffected voters, who see them as appropriate strongmen to enforce reforms or change the status quo. Since populism is a political style rather than an ideology it is more appealing.
Just because a CEO is successful doesn't necessarily mean that he "can solve social problems that a politician cannot." Unfortunately ignorant voters don't understand that "political leadership is fundamentally different from corporate leadership." A CEO has his company's best interests - "profit maximization" - at heart and answers to shareholders, without taking the wider public into consideration. A political leader has the duty and responsibility to take care of everybody - "both the haves and have-nots, the employed and the unemployed alike." He must provide for jobs and "ensure that unemployed workers have new opportunities, or risk losing their votes." The nature of the two tasks is different - to run an efficient company versus to maintain an inclusive society.
According to the author, reforms - especially fundamental ones - are fraught with pitfalls. As they are often unpopular voters elect strongmen to deliver them, in their belief that reforms "be imposed on the public, rather than being impeded by excessively democratic processes." The problem is that "while some strong leaders managed to implement reforms quickly, the measures benefited only a minority of people, and many of them were eventually reversed."
As an example privatisation has its up- and downsides. People lose jobs as a result of cost-cutting measures, and they would become an angry mass if little is done for their welfare. They would take revenge on political leaders at the polls. Privatisation could also create a new political class - a minority of plutocrats and oligarchs, who are seen as predators by ordinary have-nots. Obama's healthcare reform, from which millions of Americans benefit, is another example. If Trump scraps this healthcare coverage altogether, he shouldn't be surprised that many would want to unseat him in 2020 - if he still remains in office.
Not all reforms are constructive. The author points out that "damage caused by certain unpopular reforms" could last "far longer than the reforms themselves." Luckily we have institutions that serve as checks-and-balances to prevent leaders from becoming authoritarian. Due to the lack of experience reforms in many post-communist countries are messy, and "the pain they caused created the political conditions for populist strongmen to take over." Often the new leaders "reversed the reforms," and dismantled "institutional checks on their power," to safeguard their actions. Once they cemented power, they "redistributed the country’s wealth to their cronies," sowing the seeds of graft and corruption. Italy is a Western democracy, but when Silvio Berlusconi left office in 2011, he left the country worse off than when he started. Trump is another Berlusconi and his voters have been warned by Italians, but they just refuse to believe it.
Karl Barber Jan 8, 2017

The article contrasts the "liberal democracy" with its established institutions (good) and populism (bad). This is a misleading presentation of current challenges. Rob Johnson and Andres Velasco were more accurate in describing "the rigged system"/deficient democracy and the revolt against it.

Similarly, references to privatization were also inaccurate. People lost trust in reforms because privatization in many transition economies was rigged, the assets went to reformers' cronies. The fact that privatization was supported by the EBRD and other international organizations damaged their credibility in these countries
Val Mackenzie Jan 7, 2017

I hope that some of Trumps supporters read this article but I doubt they are the kind of people who support quality journalism and liberalism.
stephan Edwards Jan 7, 2017

The politician who gives a single solitary damn for the have-nots is a rare species. Kind of like the passenger pigeon or the Dodo bird. Policy is by and for the rich PERIOD.
Walter Gingery Jan 7, 2017

A very interesting article.

Of course, older readers will recall that business has NOT always been run as it so often now is, for the sole benefit of management and quarterly dividends to shareholders.

Earlier business leaders considered much more: the long term future of the enterprise, which requires investment in research and development; the welfare of the workers and the community, which requires training and education; housing and infrastructure; and public health.

Business leaders with these values would produce very different government policies -- and a very different America.
Luke Lea Jan 6, 2017

So does this make Trump a strongman or a democrat?
M M Jan 6, 2017

Business leaders have to meet many benchmarks, targets, and overcome many regulatory constraints and their loyalty would be primarily to their stakeholders some of them are in government, and if they fail in meeting their set targets, they are SACKED. Whilst the beloved politicians have got no loyalty to no one but to themselves and to their ultimate funders and could not care less about the electorate, especially after being voted into office. Since once they are, they are in either for a specified term and in the cases of some countries, they are in office for life. So in summary, the misrepresentation and biased interpretations by the author of a large / semi governmental institutions is very worrying indeed.
Giovanna Vinci Jan 6, 2017

Nice and sensible article. Compliments!