The U.S. Elections and the perils of the Illiberal Democracy
Le Elezioni Americane e i pericoli della Democrazia Illiberale

Le Elezioni Americane e i pericoli della Democrazia Illiberale

5
(3)

“In cauda venenum”

(Latin phrase traucibile as “The poison [is] in the tail”)

The U.S. Elections and the perils of the Illiberal Democracy, An Unpredictable Past
Gruppi di protesta riunitisi al di fuori dei centri di conteggio dei voti negli Stati Uniti

Bentornati amici miei,

This week, it was impossible not to deal in some way with the American elections of 2020, and as far as I am concerned I would like to do it in a particular way, exactly as this election was, which, I’m afraid, did not end here. On this blog we have dealt very often with those political systems called “Illiberal Democracies” or “Hybrid Systems”: a classification used to define those countries in which there is an authoritarian politics that for one reason or another enjoys strong popular support. We generally find this system in the countries that were part of the Soviet Bloc, but also in other realities around the world.

But this time it’s different: today we see this phenomenon at work even in completely different realities, with an important history of democracy behind it. This article aims to be a reflection on their development and on some of the factors that lead to the development of Illiberal models also in the West.

I decided to follow these elections closely for a “personal” matter: I wanted to verify as closely as possible what was happening in the United States, and, in the three days of counting required before Joe Biden was officially declared the winner, something I, and maybe nobody else, did not ever expected, happened.

Il presidente uscente Donald Trump ha annunciato che avrebbe tenuto un discorso, e, a reti unificate, ha dichiarato che le elezioni erano state truccate. è scoppiato il pandemonio. Le televisioni sono state addirittura costrette a interrompere la diretta, non potendo controinterrogare il Presidente sulle sue gravi dichiarazioni, e, ovviamente, temendo che ci fosse una reazione esagerata tra l'elettorato repubblicano.

In a few minutes the word “Fraud” was on the lips of half the world, American and foreigner, for or against President Trump. Never expected such a thing, even from Trump. And it is even stranger, if I think of my country, Italy: here politicians and political parties declare electoral fraud before, during and after the elections, even if they win elections, not to mention all the times that somebody yelled for an ongoing coup d’état, obviously withouth any reason, and, needless to say, without any proof.

Durante la notte (per noi, in GMT +01) poi, mi sono imbattuto questo ottimo articolo della Professoressa Zeynep Tufekci published by the newspaper “The Atlantic”. In her article, Professor Tufekci highlights the “anomalies” of the Trump presidency (in the American context): its over-the-top TV star attitude, the compulsive use of social networks and the ever more striking promises, never realized. In addition, let us not forget, to far more dangerous ideas, such as his heavy abuse of presidential prerogatives, together with the diffusion of an idea of ​​State based on the concept of “herrenvolk democracy”, or rather on its ethnic-religious characterization (in this case, WASP), which should have “priority” over minorities, especially in matters concerning access to the welfare state and, in turn, to institutions.

In the article, a comparison is then made with other leaders who the professor considers somewhat similar to Trump: Bolsonaro in Brazil, Putin in Russia, Orbán in Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey. The warning that is thrown through this brief comparative analysis is that a more capable, future politician, without Trump’s grotesque excesses, might be able to inherit his legacy but without discredit, carrying out identical policies but with a “public figure” which is more institutional.

Ed è a questo punto che la questione mi trova al contempo in accordo e in disaccordo.

Let me explain: the warning that Professor Tufekci launches is sacrosanct, since one of the main problem of the “Trump phenomenon” lies in the identification with the person. Those who support him, identify themselves with him, rather than in a political project or view. And the silence (or, worse, the support) that in recent days many Republican leaders have given in response to his narcissistic delirious is eloquent, it shows us how they do not know how to turn back, once supported all the abuses committed in recent years, and above all how to behave with their’s own electorate, which from now on will hardly accept someone more “moderate”.

Inoltre, questo non è solo un problema di una parte politica: Biden dovrà, per i prossimi quattro anni, confrontarsi con oltre 70 milioni di elettori che lo considerano un presidente nel migliore dei casi detestabile e abusivo nel peggiore. Nel momento in cui scrivo, Trump non gli ha ancora concesso la vittoria, nonostante i suoi legali vengano rifiutati in tutte le Corti a cui fanno appello.

This involves two things: first It puts us in front of the “personalization” that this electoral campaign has had (Posso solo votare per Lui vs voterei per tutti tranne Lui), and the fact that the former President has decided (he or whoever for him) to launch his latest poisoned “tail shot”, creating a very dangerous climate of institutional delegitimation. These two factors, together, are the keys that open the doors to Illiberal Democracy.

Dov'è il mio disaccordo, allora?

It is in the models taken for example, which, in my opinion, are strongly decontextualized and fail to give an idea of ​​what can happen within a democratic system. Don’t take it as an academic habit: understanding “where” your country is going can really make the difference. And don’t take it as some kind of “prediction” either, because it’s happening right now, in the meantime you’re reading.

The countries cited as an example, rather than having intelligent politicians who win elections, all have in common a historically undemocratic background. Putin, Bolsonaro, Orban and Erdogan were not necessarily “better” or “luckier” than Trump: they were instead able to exploit that illiberal streak already present in their society (even in those who opposed them) to take power. But on the contrary, the United States discovered this vein recently, or at least it became evident when someone went to dig to get it out. With it, however, also a strong opposition movement emerged, which in the end managed to prevail.

Purtroppo è mia opinione che i problemi siano appena iniziati.

And here is where the example of Italy comes in handy: despite the complete diversity of political systems (and their “scale”), Italy has had, and have (over time always to a lesser extent, unfortunately) a democratic spirit in its own way, and, although not as strong as in the US, it has withstood tremendous blows for decades, and now is on the verge of collapse. The United States is experiencing a phenomenon similar to the one that, for about twenty years, has gripped my country. Yes, I’m talking about Silvio Berlusconi and his legacy. Maybe you’ve heard of him (just in comparison to Trump) or maybe not.

In that case, a small summary may be useful to better understand why we are in this situation now. Berlusconi came to power with slogans that today would be called “anti-enstablishment”: he represented the outsider who challenged a sclerotic political system overwhelmed by corruption scandals. For twenty years he was, for better or for worse, the undisputed protagonist of our national politics, regardless of whether in power or not. Not unlike Trump, he treated “public affairs” as his property, he appeared as a showman, a histrionic television entertainer, a testimonial who had to sell a product, which was none other than his Party. He has never hidden his sympathies towards illiberal regimes (one above all, Vladimir Putin, but also, Muhammar Gaddafi) and his acquiescence towards the extreme right, of any kind, and he himself has always governed on the edge of the institutional context, pushing the powers of the state to clash on each other for personal pourpose.

For its part, the opposition merely said to its constituents “we are not Berlusconi” and little else. Surrendering on income and only managing to bring together coalitions and coarse and quarrelsome governments, without a vision other than to send the Black Man away and restore “national prestige”. It will be precisely in those years that an increasingly illiberal feeling will begin to manifest itself even in the opposite field: anything was lawful in order to strike Him.

Per due decenni il Paese è stato nettamente diviso in due, e tutta l'attenzione era concentrata sulla figura di Berlusconi.

When, at the end of 2011, he was forced to resign for bringing the country to the brink of bankruptcy in the context of the European Debt Crisis, we all (myself included) thought it was truly over. We were wrong. The drastic measures necessary to stem the economic problems he created throught the years allowed him to return to the fore one last time: conspiracy theories about “foreign interference” or a “White Golpe” orchestrated to make him resign became part of the mainstream debate (in fact they already were, but not to an extent so marked) and thanks to the promise to bring everything back as before (i.e. Make Italy Great Again) he was one step away from winning the elections again. Neither Berlusconi nor his party managed to regain the hegemonic role of the past, but the climate of constant confrontation remained, and this cancer had metastasized in Italian society.

Ma il peggio doveva ancora venire.

In fact, Berlusconi was out of the political game, but was quickly replaced by far more aggressive and undemocratic heirs. The personalization of politics and the de-legitimization of any institution had opened the doors to unscrupulous individuals, ready to do anything to enter the vacuum of power. Much more virulent and demagogic than their worthy predecessor, it took them just over 5 years to conquer the whole country, whit the help of new technologies and a more viral “marketing”, based on fake news (the good, old, lies) and conspiracy theories.

Even the most traditional media, such as newspapers and televisions, have done nothing but continue with the same behavior as before, but with new subjects who represented the “novelty of the day”, contributing with an “idiotic equanimity” putting intellegible debate and conspiratorial nonsense on the same level, when they did not directly leave these subjects free to speak, and to spread their “ideas” without any contradictory.

Ad oggi hanno la maggioranza in parlamento e nel Paese, mentre l'opposizione democratica è ridotta a un barlume.

Ora gli Stati Uniti stanno affrontando un problema simile: un Presidente patologicamente narcisista, dopo aver perso le elezioni regolari, ha deciso di avvelenare i pozzi sostenendo che ci sono state brogli elettorali. Ora 70 milioni di suoi sostenitori sono più o meno convinti che il Sistema sia truccato, entrando in empatia con un personaggio che si presenta come vittima di un mondo ingiusto, proprio come loro. Una miscela esplosiva, di cui, osservando ogni giorno ciò che mi circonda, posso già anticipare i risultati.

In a Democracy, Society creates Institutions, in a Dictatorship, Institutions create Society. In an Illiberal Democracy, Society is viewed split into “Us and Them” and the institutions were used to increase the level of confrontation, necessary to strengthen the Parties involved and their respective electorates. Be aware that the real war begins now: if Americans (not just the President, or the politicians) fail to cut off the climate of perennial confrontation and delegitimization, together with the personalization of politics, they will not find themselves with another “more institutional Trump”, but with 70 million Trumps, narcissists, bullies and prone to victimization, and at that point it will become difficult to hope that they will simply go away.

In conclusione, la domanda non è se il GOP si stia organizzando o meno per schierare il prossimo Trump, e chi potrebbe essere, la domanda è se possono o meno fare altrimenti. L'altra domanda è cosa si può fare ora to prevent the same situation from happening again, and thats a matter for all the american civil society. If the sole purpose of this election was to beat Trump, then in four years we will see another, and then another, until the phenomenon infects all politics in a game in which electors become mere “supporters” and democratic competition will have no purpose other than victory itself.

Paraphrasing Giorgio Gaber, a famous Italian songwriter: “Don’t be afraid of Trump himself, but be afraid of the Trump in yourself”.

Spero abbiate trovato interessanti queste poche righe, e che vi abbiano fatto capire cosa intendo (ci vorrebbero i libri, ma al momento ci mancano). Un sentito ringraziamento anche a tutti coloro che hanno seguito e commentato con me durante i giorni delle elezioni, e alla professoressa Tufekci per l'ispirazione.

Rimanete vigili. Insieme.

Quanto è stato utile questo Post?

Clicca su una stella per valutarlo!

Average rating 5 / 5. Vote count: 3

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *

it_ITItalian
[class^="wpforms-"]
[class^="wpforms-"]