Identifying Autocratic Populists

Eduardo del Buey
Foto: Afp
La Jornada Maya

Martes 5 de junio, 2018

Previously, I described how democratic leaders can fight autocratic populist candidates and win.

But in order to fight them, one must first identify them.

How?

In their recent book “How Democracies Die” (Crown Publishing 2018), Harvard University political science professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt provide a template for identifying potential autocratic populist candidates.

Their template consists of four main points:

Does the candidate reject the democratic rules of the game?

Does the candidate reject the legitimacy of his or her opponent?

Does the candidate tolerate or encourage violence?

Is the candidate ready to curtail civil liberties, including a free media?

From the very beginning of his campaign in 2015, Donald Trump ticked all four boxes, as well as two more, which I will add:

Does the candidate identify enemies who can be blamed for all of the voters’ perceived problems?

Does the candidate promise solutions for every problem, without identifying how he will accomplish this and how he will fund his solutions?

In October of 2015, Trump tweeted that “of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day”. When asked at a Republican debate if he would accept the verdict of voters, he answered that he would, but only if he won.

From before he won the election, he has fought an almost hourly battle to de-legitimize the FBI, and the CIA, claiming that they were beholden to his opponent and that the previous administration had bugged his communications. He railed against all of those who opposed his views and demonstrated a level of political vitriol hitherto unforeseen in recent presidential campaigns.

Throughout his primary campaign, Trump constantly disparaged his Republican opponents, insulting them in speeches and tweets, and giving them ridiculing nicknames.

He continued along this vein in the general campaign, when he described Hillary Clinton as a criminal (crooked Hillary), and encouraged his audience to scream “lock her up”.

Throughout his campaign, he encouraged violence against those who did not agree with him.

In Iowa on February 1, 2016, he told the audience “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them…I promise you I will pay the legal fees”. In Michigan on March 4, 2016, he told his audience “Try not to hurt him. If you do, I’ll defend you in court”. And in August 2016, Trump threatened Hillary Clinton by telling his audience “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks, although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know”. As you know the second amendment is the right of all to bear arms. Read it as you will.

Trump is not the only autocratic populist to encourage violence.

In Nicaragua, as I write, Daniel Ortega is unleashing armed thugs and police authorities against unarmed demonstrators calling for a return to democracy in that Central American country. Ortega ruled Nicaragua autocratically from 1979 until 1990. He again won the presidency in 2007 with 38 percent of the vote. Ortega quickly replaced supreme court judges and other key officials with cronies, barred opposition parties from running against his movement in subsequent elections, and has governed with an iron fist. His vice president is his own wife.

Voters saw Ortega coming, and still enough of them voted for an undemocratic option and supported the machinations that made it possible.

And now, Nicaraguans have taken to the streets, prepared to die, seeking to end populist autocracy.

Regarding the fourth point, Trump has consistently from the very start of his campaign called the mainstream media “fake news”. During the campaign he threatened to change libel laws to make media easier to sue, and threatened Amazon.com owner Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Trump unfriendly Washington Post, by saying that he would experience not only serious tax problems but, also, problems with the U.S. Postal Service that Amazon relies upon to deliver its products should he become president. Using the institutions of power against his “enemies” is a fundamental sign of an autocratic populist.

At every public speaking engagement, Trump incites audiences against the media covering the event.

As far as the fifth point is concerned, from the first announcement of his intention to go for the presidency, Trump identified Mexicans as rapists and murderers, and accused China of raping the United States economically. He has tried since that date to ban Muslims from visiting the United States.

As far as the sixth point is concerned, Donald Trump offered a wall that Mexico would pay for (which it will definitely not), promised to defeat ISIS in thirty days (ISIS still exists and continues to motivate terrorists all over the world), and said he would withdraw from NAFTA (while he is playing games with trade, NAFTA talks continue).

What role does the media play in electing an autocratic populist?

Levitsky and Ziblatt note that by one estimate, the Twitter accounts of MSNBC, CNN, CBS, and NBC – four anti-Trump networks – mentioned Trump twice as often as they did Clinton. They conclude that Trump enjoyed $2 billion worth of free mainstream media coverage during the primaries.

The mainstream media preferred to cover his outrageous statements over those of his opponents and enabled Trump to create a ubiquitous persona that smothered intelligent political debate. They chose “entertainment” over news.

The mainstream media continues to have a permanent roster of Trump apologists and surrogates on different programs every night, providing Trump with a 24/7 platform and making it almost impossible for others to get their messages out.

Repeat lies often enough, and they become truth. This is a fact of life for autocratic populists, one that Trump has employed since his youth.

So, as the U.S. presidential election campaign took shape, all of the signs of an autocratic populist candidate were there for all to see.

The mainstream media gave him an estimated $2 billion worth of free media coverage, thus enabling him to appear to be everywhere, creating an aura of invincibility.

His opponents failed to craft two to three simple messages that reflected the concerns of many disenfranchised voters and failed to connect with the public. You cannot run a cool and aloof technocrat against a populist rabble rouser, and Clinton was hopelessly outclassed and out-maneuvered in this regard.

She did win a majority of the popular vote. But she failed to campaign strategically to obtain the necessary votes in key swing states to gain the majority in the Electoral College. As an experienced and prepared politician, she should have known better.

While sixteen of the seventeen Republican candidates in the primaries rejected Trump’s arguments and vision, the Republican party rank and file embraced him, and continues to enable his hateful language and views as he weakens democratic institutions, that same party and imposes an autocratic vision of politics in the United States.

When Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany democratically in 1933, the military and the industrialists were certain that they could control him. They were wrong.

When Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela democratically in 1998, the political power-brokers though he would be a short tem wonder. Instead, Venezuela has become a political, economic, and social basket case with millions fleeing to neighboring countries to escape the consequences of their vote.

When Alberto Fujimori was democratically elected President of Peru in 1990, he undertook a road to absolute power that had the support of certain sectors of society fed up with economic turmoil and terrorist violence. He was finally brought down by a series of videos that depicted his corruption and his involvement in violent repression.

Yet other populists – Brazil’s Lula da Silva, South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, and Uruguay’s Jose Mújica, to mention just three – knew how to listen to their people, found ways to address their concerns, and left power freely when their terms ended.

The autocratic populist more often than not comes to power in democratic elections, and voters believe that they can either be controlled, or will fulfill their need for political economic, and social transformation.

Voters legitimize the autocrat’s vision, support his undemocratic actions, and enable his assault on absolute power often unaware of the consequences of their actions or inaction.

With a completely subjugated Republican Party and Congress, an increasingly right-wing judiciary, and his own mass media apparatus, Trump can control and shape political dialogue in the United States.

With a hapless Democrat Party unable to craft simple winning messages and find a charismatic leader, there is a real danger that Trump will win again in 2020. The risk here is a more forceful seizure of power to remain in office past a second term.

Populism can be foretold and fought effectively by selecting candidates who connect with the public and craft messages and policies that address their concerns. By doing so, the populist autocrat can be contained and eventually defeated. This requires putting democracy before party or parochial interests and proposing policies that address the needs of the electorate and identifying how they will be implemented.

The populist autocrat depends on the gullibility of voters to achieve his end.

It is up to all of us to watch for the signs and react appropriately.

[b][email protected][/b]