Thomas L. Friedman identifies four politicians who are ideologically fixed on themselves and feel they are indispensable for the futures of their countries-Putin, Xi, Trump and Netanyahu. Each feels compelled to hold onto power. He avers that in different ways they have caused massive disruptions within and beyond their own countries. I predict that each could destroy their country or at least limit the future of each. I would also include Modi. Aside from the willingness of people to support them, why has this occurred at the same time and in similar ways?
Each wants to return to an imagined past. Each represents right wing outlooks expressed through introversion and consuming egotism. Is it simply the USA's moving away from centre stage, and the impulse to fill it, returning to the competitive modes of feudalism? While this argument has merit, they all seem prepared and able to work with each other.
They certainly are or have limited the future of each country they represent. Netanyahu's religious fascism is bearing violent fruit, Xi has caused the Chinese economy to stop growing, Putin bringing long term degradation to Russia, installing in each case recognisable forms of fascism and each is installing an elite to which all state riches go, returning to an age of religious intolerance and prejudice.
Synchronization of economic systems crisis, reflected by autocratic and authoritarian characters.
https://www.loc.gov/collections/hannah-arendt-papers/articles-and-essays/totalitarianism-the-inversion-of-politics/
One added concern I have is, although they appear backed up by the less educated in their societies, they work towards the creation, like Putin, of a small elite who are exceptionally rich-even dying in droves for that elite.
Antonio
An excellent overview but are there any other possible reasons? Putin I understand as pursuing his usual cynical aims, recognising that Russia is not a superpower and retaining his/Russia's position through theatrical assertions: sabre rattling, claims to have new super weapons ready, backed up by the lessons on TV performance he was actually taught as PM before 2000. He clings to Chi but that might bounce back on him and Russia.
I think we need new terms other than left and right wing, as Putin is, well, fascist, and Chi enacts now many of the positions Putin did and does. That these countries and leaders often emerged from left wing politics is perhaps, too some extent, a given. What they have in common seems to be nationalism, a return to the past, and the removal and subjugation of western influence.
I made the point elsewhere that ex-communist or communist countries express the opposite, royalty, aristocracy. Chi is a communist aristocrat, his family rich and high up in the Chinese hierarchy (a rich boy in effect), the North Koreans have established a dynasty, where everything is run for the sake of the family, while Putin returns Russia to brutal origins. This is an elite group focused on themselves.
Earlier designations of the left never made sense. Most seemed to me to occupy the right. Often, revolutions or any political change, means swapping one elite group for another who then themselves corner riches. Castro impoverished Cuba, although he had help from the USA, and the revolutionaries of the '60s and 70's were not often the poster boys of social justice. Che was, some people thought, a reactionary thug!
It is incorrect to say "Netanyahu's religious fascism." It is the other party in this coalition who are religious extremists.
Najma, perhaps extremism would be better? But can you elaborate? And is it right to gain power and leave principles behind?
It is a government made up of 7 parties. 2 of these parties, as far as I am aware, are extreme religious. Netanyahu himself is not a religious extremist.
- Badges
- Science topic