The same decline is occurring in France with the increasing electoral power of the Rassemblement National, whose non-democratic attitude is very clear.

Daniel, the UK is free of of greater authoritarianism but only because of the haplessness of its ruling class.

Nevertheless, Cameron's government of boyhood aristocratic friends and neighbours, much loved by voters, is not that long ago and itself represented a return to the past. But lets be clear, until the 1970s British society was ruled by oligarchs no matter the voting architecture, if that is the perceived reasoning, but Thatcher's rule was away from democratic ideas towards class authoritarianism. Blair's a rule by the professional classes.

But here I am discussing democracy within the Periclean/Cleon ideal not its reality of vote by everyone, rule by an elite management.

I am not up on French institutions but it seems to lurch towards personal rule or rule through personality.

The onslaught of Trump's supporters on the Capitol was an act of treason, as is Mike Johnsons holding up of bills. That Trump was not put immediately on trial was the result of fear and insecurity within the legislature recognising Trump's control of the Republican Party, which now represents a party which intends to turn back the clock, returning the country to white oligarchic rule.

With respect to economic statistics and total outputStanley Wilkin , we can see a clear decline of liberal democracy, since 30 years. This does not mean that the autocracies are more productive, but only that economic stagnation, due to a lack of innovation and investment, causes the same societal consequences, i.e. mainly inflation and lowering of living standards as per ppp (purchasing power parity).

Stephen,

I tend to agree with you on the length of the decline. The Iraqi War may come to be seen as America's low/high water mark indicating political decline. Lies were told and propagated. A better mark is as long ago as Nixon.

Interesting on lowering of living standards, etc, as I see the autocracies as managing that decline in order to secure their rule. Both Russia and China. Certainly if competing with the USA no longer becomes necessary, which would occur under Trump, an alternative model will be embraced. North Korea.

I watched Putin give out economic lessons on Russian TV around the time of the egg problem and Putin gave daft advice on the economy, which entailed the lack of competition in his resource model of an economy in his PhD. I then came across a pro Putin female economist restate this regarding Russian PPP and how if Russia stops interacting with the West etc it could gain control over the ruble and the economy itself. This I informed her was about negating economic growth, that is wealth production. But it gives the Russian elite complete control of Russian society-----North Korea.

Putin sets the price of the ruble and thereby PPP. It can, and already in fact does, tell others the state of its own economy. As does China, which is following Russia's lead. As long as the economy feeds its population and has marginal outgoings, Putin's paradise.

The biggest investments Putin is promising include 4.5 trillion rubles, or $49 billion, to upgrade public infrastructure, and 1 trillion rubles to build and renew existing hospitals, per Reuters.

There's also a 75 billion ruble plan to boost birth rates and life expectancy. Putin called on Russians to have more babies last month to "survive as an ethnic group."

It's unclear where the extra budget will come from. On Friday, Putin proposed changes to the tax system that are designed to result in more taxes from high-income individuals and businesses, per Moscow Times.

Analysts attribute Russia's resilience to its wartime spending, state subsidies, and its large, globally integrated economy.

Still, Russia has posted two years of budget deficits since it invaded Ukraine.

Consequently, Stanley Wilkin , these are definitely state-commanded wishlists, which will require a search for additional sources of financing.

Stephen,

Or, Putin is saying everything is normal, we go on. But surely this is a Walter Mitty reconstruction not based on a realistic assessment of funds. Who can he tax_? Oligarchs money is surely diminished as they can no longer rebuild fortunes in the West, at least in the high profile fashion as before. But an interesting point to be made from this is perhaps recognition of undue political power of Oligarchs in the West, such as Trump and Musk, and their extreme views and that there is a justified reason to consider their riches and how they got them.

If we go back to the late 19th century we find an attack on the very rich as their influence on American society was deemed out of control. Worse occurred in the early 20th century, the rich made uneasy by the threat of Communism, and indulged in illegal acts against workers. In Britain, riches were still connected to class and abuses were thereby less visible.

Stephen

Also Putin uses his public speeches to establish his intentions. All his predicted changes are in the 2030s so therefore he is saying I will still be ruling then and beyond.

Actually, I wait for people to eulogise Putin because of the length of his rule rather then the way he acquired it. Putin is unusual because he never gained office. It was given him by the KGB and oligarchs. He never fought his way to power but was handed it by the above as they seemed to have believed he was an easy mark. He then employed sacral rule against them. The fact that effectively at the beginning he was simply a stooge is what makes him obsessed with his elections.

Russia has absorbed economic shocks before, and the last twenty-five years have shown that its economy can endure serious pain without destabilizing its political foundations. To put the stress in perspective, the estimated 4.5 percent contraction of Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) in the three months after the invasion is similar to the early losses during the 2008 global financial crisis and the country’s 1998 financial crisis. And it pales in comparison to the shock from the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

While no two economic shocks are the same, Russia’s dependence on resource revenues has made fuel prices a key determinant of economic fate.

Russian institutions and the population itself have become increasingly inured to economic trauma.

There are degrees of economic pain Russia’s leadership knows its citizens will tolerate and its institutions can handle. To change that calculus Stanley Wilkin , the West will need to do more to truly shock the Russian economy. Otherwise, with respect to advanced systems thinking and not focusing on a certain personality, the expectable oucome of this territorial fight will be very different from any official propaganda.

Stephen,

While I do not accept the pessimistic viewpoints on the Russian economy, yours are maybe too positive. One of the reasons for this war was the 2019 contraction of oil revenues, which Putin understood made Russia vulnerable but by taking Ukraine he could possibly offset the dangers. But the decline in oil use over the following decades makes Russia, a country without a productive economy, susceptible to collapse. Putin's possible way out is to contract the economy and survive outside wealth production. He is principally interested in his political survival and that of his system. He dearly wants to be remembered. Russia can survive through contraction not expansion.

Russia uses the war as part of its economic structuring and is in this way unusual. The paying of wages to soldiers is seen as part of its economic activity not military activity so the building of tanks and manufacture of shells is viewed within GDP and PPP. Therefore creating a healthy economy, even if it isn't so. The general population is wealthier. Russia is therefore doing fine! But by paying soldiers the infrastructure deteriorates.

While I am not as optimistic as you on the Russian economies survival, it has to be remembered that in 2019 Putin was shaken by the dive in oil revenue and its effect on the country. He realised that his rule was at risk from the fluctuation in oil prices and made the conquest of Ukraine imperative. Taking over thereby that state's resources.

Russia has placed the war within the economic domain, whereby money paid to soldiers is encased within normal earnings within production systems. The PPP appears thereby artificially high, and indeed GDP. The manufacture of tanks reflects in production. This is the kind of economy that Putin desires to create, one that reflects on itself. North Korea's in effect.

As such an economy is not entirely within the world economic sphere, even when unhealthy, it looks healthy. Not a crash but slow deterioration.

According to the IMF, Russia's GDP is around 7% lower than the pre-war forecast. Despite all of this, Russia's economy has not collapsed. But it does look very different, and is now entirely focused on a long war in Ukraine – which is actually driving economic growth !

The Russian economy is expected to continue growing in 2024, though at a somewhat diminished pace. The Russian government's forecast of a 2.3% increase in GDP is actually below the 2.6% forecast released by the International Monetary Fund

We can forecast average annual GDP growth of around +1.5% in 2024-2025. Consumer price inflation has steadily increased from the low of 2.3% in April 2023 to 7.4% at the end of the year as import suppression, labor shortages, supply-chain disruptions and a weaker currency in 2023 exerted upward pressure on prices.

Imo, Stanley Wilkin , Russia can sustain its current rate of attrition for up to three years and maybe even longer.

Stephen,

This may be true but as Russia reports its figures rather than producing back-up. in other words proof, surely Russia can make any claim? As said, Russia employs war production and payments to soldiers to provide a healthier position than is true. From a distance, the way Russia has constructed its war economy gives the impression of health, which may be true. The ruble appears healthy as it goes around in ever descending circles from government to army, and, to an extent, back again. Its own institution provides content.. Where otherwise is the production? What factories? What finance? An economy with little activity? What genuine funding of government projects other than the war?

What does Russia make?

Have you ever known Russia to tell the truth about national situations?

I can tell everyone I'm a millionaire, but proof is a greater matter.

Putin wants everyone to believe Russia is doing fine despite the sanctions, the economy is on the up. Since Putin and his economic team produce (rig) the evidence all the world sits up and makes note. See, Russia is beating sanctions, beating America, beating predictions. See how brilliant Putin is? And, of course, the world buys just another Putin scam.

Stephen,

I am amazed you've bought into this recent Putin scam and I know many Russian born economists have not. Again, I repeat, this is an economic miracle on paper only and it has no reality in daily life. Economic survival by contraction as I advise is more likely the case. I assume you watched the televised evidence for Putin's speech and therefore you saw the face of the head of Russian economy? Did you see a single joyful expression? She looked miserable to me.

We partner with top economic data and intelligence providers to ensure our clients can access our data and research via their preferred platforms. We are proud to work with Bloomberg, EMIS, FactSet, Haver Analytics, Infront, Macrobond, Refinitiv and S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Citation from the source:

https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/russia/

The provided data Stanley Wilkin are not from Russian sources, i.e. my conclusion (look up the estimation) in the last post is reasonable; your expected economic survival by contraction will take methodically much longer.

But will be successful if in a lower economic position.

One thing with most economic judgement is that neither Russian nor Chinese economic claims are doubted, even if they provide no or little genuine evidence. Paper evidence without additional checks seems pointless and the slow fossilisation of the Russian economy is not noted. Where is this economic growth?

Men taken out of the labour market in hundreds of thousands

the best educated gone

the west largely, but not entirely withdrawing investment

the oil industry under attack by Ukraine

being fed commodities by China, and consequently being ripped off by China

Where?

The only way it can remain healthy, indeed expanding, is through manipulation of data. Both China and Russia.

Fukuyama points to problems within the constitution allowing minority politics too much power and control over political processes.

In this point Stanley Wilkin , I do fully agree with F. Fukuyama. In any case, my approach is data-driven, but I am always open for important qualitative arguments (e.g. legal, everyday experiences, macro-prudent intuition) from the ground of life.

Method Review of Globalization and Autocracy article

PS/

Example:

Almost all data bases claim an average monthly income of 440000HUF in Hungary, while all my neighbors (working 3 shifts in industry) only make about 230000HUF.

Conclusion: Scientific methodology must be kept open for quantitative and qualitative assessments of social situations in countries, armed conflicts and the most important world of human labor and living chances.

Stephen,

Quite honestly, given what is known, I cannot see the economic position you give here can be true.

It is believed that after the election, Putin will go into military society and machine mode. Thereby more men, far more, will be conscripted into the army and factories not yet eliminated by Ukraine will go into overdrive. As there is nothing else, from what I can see to drive this, it will be funded by oil etc. So while on the one hand citizens will be given money by Putin to fight in Ukraine and that will make their families at home better off, they will be spending more possibly than before, that money will come from the government. But for the GDP and PPP because of the way Russia includes this war in its economy-higher family spending, high productivity-more people working in factories to make tanks and shells, Russia will be prospering.

As far as I know, Chinese banks and Indian banks have stopped dealing with Russia. Russia's reserves could by the end of the year be close to collapse.

Stephen,

In your article....

Self reliance will reduce wealth, that is what people can buy outside of food, etc, natural resources, and block technological advance except that which is wanted or permitted by the autocratic government and allows their continuance. Wealth production expressed by individual right to technology and better standards of living is indeed a democratic ideal but puts stress globally, especially on global resources.

This will make a very different world and place power back into the hands of large countries with plenty of resources, and certainly would undermine countries in Europe as technology shrinks.

It is, as I have continuously pointed out, an attempt to put back the clock, making kings of Putin and Chi. Aristocrats of those around them. That maybe what Trump wants too. It is again rule not by the best, but by the most ruthless.

Am in agreement with your assessment Stanley Wilkin Making predictions in social science, with respect to the direction and time-scale of a political economy, is mainly bound to creating methodically useful (comparative) scenarios, which point to alternative event possibilities by reducing the observer bias.

Your last sentence reminds me to the ''The Road To Serfdom'' by F.Hayek and his observation : Why the Worst Get On Top:

Once a government sets out to control the lives of its citizens - to regulate how and when they do business, to guide economic activity - it must assume tremendous power over their lives.

And it must by necessity disregard the wishes of individuals.

It should be no surprise, then, said Hayek, that the persons who rise to the top of such a government are those who most want to wield power, those who are most ruthless in using power.

But democracy provides a means of limiting that but as we see in the USA and Trump and Mike Johnson, not sufficiently. It makes mistakes. As authoritarianism preferences power, this will continue to be a problem. The growth of this has much to do with the immense difficulties of imposing democratic institutions which can provide complexity, even if that very complexity invites wealth construction.

The bevy of authoritarianism involves the inherent limitation of specific types of intelligence amongst them, North Africa and Russia as examples, and the pursuit of first choice politics.

I see there was no response to my rejection of your model, Stephen, but in fact this is the most widely used one to explain Russian phoenix like economic resuscitation, which otherwise offends common sense.

When Russia climbs to 1 million soldiers in the field will its economic resurrection as it rises to 5th in the world cause amazement in AI corridors and perhaps the obvious explanation again blindsided.

In China authoritarian bias rules and thereby some Far Eastern economic experts believe it is not quite as competitive as other experts imagine. China and Russia play the same game. Trouble is, how on earth can anyone believe that of Russia?

The China nexus is obvious and it plays into all my scenarios Stanley Wilkin ,

with respect to economic time-scaling of durability. New social phenomena as very (!) high youth unemployment in the PRC document that the overall accumulated wealth belongs to a certain strata (class) and generation (age group), which profited from speedy authoritarian state capitalism. The PRC is economically very active in Eastern Europe and parts of the Balkans.

Also BRICS has to be mentioned: as of Jan. 1, 2024, the bloc expanded to include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, Iran, and Ethiopia. More than 40 other nations have expressed interest in BRICS membership; BRICS nations plan to develop a new payment system based on the blockchain.

This sets the stage for further de-dollarization and could further undermine the status of the dollar as the global reserve currency.

Stephen,

I'll go over your points in detail later but let me first post this as it examines the underlying degradation within the Russian economy, always there but must be exacerbated by the war to the point of no return, unless deeper more crippling levels of degradation are accepted and a wholly new Russian society emerges.

Russian economic ‘resilience’ is not what it seems

By Mark Sobel | 12 February 2024

Russian society accepts increasing levels of degradation as it has limited history of extensive personal wealth, unlike the west. This is recalibrated by the west as resilience. In fact, it is an acceptance merely of less.

As Ukraine demolishes oil refineries and steel works, although this will take time, the resources that kept Russia from a tipping point may be removed.

The economic experts in the west have only tenuous involvement and understanding of less being a justified marker and fail thereby to see the consequences of a failing economy as they are geared to western means of understanding. Russian economists usually know better.

The BRICS countries: where next and what impact on the global economy? - Economics Observatory

By this it can be seen that Russia lags and the war is increasing its falling away. At present Russia is economically in a dismal position and its main claim for respect is equally falling away.

Even in BRIC other countries need to have a reason to trade with you. Russia needs China far more than China needs Russia.

The Coming Deluge: Russia’s Looming Lost Decade of Unpaid Bills and Economic Stagnation - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

An assessment just before the present war, Things were already bad then economically. Made worse by the Russian governments unwillingness to do anything. Had Putin turned to older methods of enrichment-conquest!

Stephen, taken from one of the papers I sent:

But, of course, the reliability of economic data should always be taken with a pinch of salt, and especially Russian economic data in the current circumstances.

With respect to our Stanley Wilkin discourse on democracy (market model) vs. autocracy (Führer model), the work of Immanuel Wallerstein on the political economy of the world system remains still relevant.

The Führer model works by ‘bureaucrazy‘ , the market model by free information networks. In the market model, which I do support, we are citizens, voters and customers; in the Führer model, we are degraded to serfs.

__________

The principle of evil in Europe is the enervating spirit of Russian absolutism.

— Lajos Kossuth (1848)

____________

The Russian system of justice and police is so haphazard, so inhuman, so arbitrary and corrupt, that a poor malefactor has more reason to fear his trial than his sentence. He is impatient for the time when he will be sent to Siberia; for his martyrdom comes to an end when his punishment begins.

— Alexander Herzen (1850)

There are I suggest two prior models as the Russian model suffers from two issues-fossilisation, in so far it never realistically changes but exhibits the same behaviour, and sacral leadership. This of course is for starters and does not thereby consider problems with Western models, class with Britain, morphed into substitutes such as professional/managerial.

But in terms of capitalism, beginning in Greece. In the Ancient World other cultures were all linked to king with strong and weak links, while Greece enabled money making as a separate process not linked to higher earthly powers. Individuality therefore naturally appeared and democracy. Next capitalist society was Islam. I am avoiding here some other sorts of money societies. Islam worked through laws on buying and selling, thereby placing initiative into Law not earthly power so much, focusing on wealth, but the proceeds went through taxation to the caliph or king.

Where Islam was and is less profitable is in its authoritarian nature. Individuality is important for wealth production but Bric posits something different, that is top down, but capitalism failed in Russia because of top down control. Authoritarianism is successful for when economies are controlled through agricultural societies and resource economies exchange is simplified..

Pushbacks are fine here.

Excellent insights Stanley Wilkin into the political economy of social systems development ! In this sense, certain political personality types do mirror systemic processes, in terms of physical and spiritual forces, which dominate the respective crowds of a polity.

I am interested in your placing BRIC with authoritarianism as India has not yet owned up to what it is. But I consider authoritarianism as a road to enriching a small elite but otherwise limiting wealth production.

With that short note you remark on, the term Democracy covers each a number of specific ideologies and the British one was always and probably still is oligarchic except many extend riches into the past. The voting system or systems, although clearly better than others, although events in US may disprove that, surely changes one elite for another-but at least they change.

Imo, India resembles an electoral autocracy, but with respect to total wealth accumulation, it is very far behind the PRC.

Yes, Stephen it is. But as to decline itself, there are economic and cultural reasons for this. But I will offer another narrative-

If Europe dovetails into a political unit more embedded than NATO as US drifts away, and it gains political will it will hold sway, or could do. Of course, at present, it lacks the will. It wants to play the uncle, not the challenging young man.

If cannot summon up the ferocity to fight the doddering old man peeping out from crowds of vodka addicts.

Under the current arrangement, there is no EU army and defence is reserved for the member states Stanley Wilkin However, on 14 NOVEMBER 2023

EU Defence Ministers agree to prioritise 22 military capabilities to bolster European armed forces.

Poland has already set in motion the plan that will lead it to obtain Europe’s strongest army. Last year, the president of Poland signed into law a bill that allowed the government to spend 3% of its GDP on defence from 2023 on - a full percentage point above what is expected of the Nato alliance’s members.

By comparison, Germany has recently pledged to increase its defence spending to reach at least the 2% threshold set by NATO for its members. In 2021, according to the latest data made available by Eurostat, the EU countries that spent most of their GDP on defence were Greece (2.8%), Latvia (2.3%), Estonia (2.0%), Romania (1.9%), France, Cyprus, and Lithuania (1.8%).

Stephen,

I believe that the Europeans should go into defence against Russia, otherwise there could be carnage. I am very aware that this means hostilities could spread, but effectively N. Korea and Iran are important partners in the war.

Nevertheless, a united Europe would make it a more efficient economic player and aid the world economy as an efficient economic focus.

Oh, for another Q. An economist talking about high Russian employment but admitting these are mainly in the army and armament factories, and the unrestricted printing of rubles. Holding onto gasoline might internally aid Russia and cause USA problems. Russia has an excellent bunch of economists, but sometimes actions produce events not expected.

Under the pressure of current events, the European Defence Agency (EDA) will develop faster into an European Army than expected. However, Brexit was a clear setback, in this respect; the departure of the United Kingdom from the EU in 2020 saw no mention within EU/UK agreements of the EDA working with the UK. The UK is one of the top five defence spenders in the world and its departure means that only France, alone in the EU, can conduct full-spectrum military operations abroad.

Stephen,

I cannot see Britain backing down, but as I said it is just the professional men. A small army but sufficient!

Portugal, where I live, has a small but highly professional army which unlike Britain is high profile. A garrison in every town. Soldiers walking the streets, Combined with remarkable gung ho for a small country I can imagine their effectiveness against the rabble-based recruits of Russia.

The most important advantages of professional army are: greater operative confidence and efficiency, interoperability with ally armies, better establishment of a number of military features important for the entire national military capability, better adjustment to the nature of military organization and internal relations imposed by functional reasons, and less contradiction between declared civil rights and freedoms and their restrictions which stem legally from the very nature of military organization.

Its most important disadvantage is seen in the reduction of "strategic depth of defence", in military terms.

There have been multiple studies done that show that volunteer militaries are more efficient, they have higher morale, tend to be better trained and more experienced. Conscripts don't want to be there, so the morale is terrible and that makes them less efficient and harder to train and lead.

These are my thoughts to your last post Stanley Wilkin .

Stephen,

Although the Russian army is showing greater military awareness, this may be because senior officers are being retained and listened to. Trouble is, the Russian army seems to be fighting the same war it did in Chechnya, where the population was and is very small and was not aided by the West. There they too lost a huge number of soldiers. (Can they keep this up? They are not the USSR.) There the Russians succeeded by using extreme numbers of artillery laying waste the cities. They did this also in Syria, and tried it unsuccessfully in Ukraine.

The Russians have learned how best to use new technology but not with the efficiency of Ukraine.

I suggest a small Western army of little more than 20,000 strategically placed and using the best weapons would annihilate the pockets of the Russian army, as at present employed. Each allied group makes an attack on each attacking bubble or pocket of the Russian army, and eliminates it. The Russian forces seem not to be trained to provide backup or reinforcement without leaving another section vulnerable. Concentration on each bubble or pocket would slowly destroy the whole or degrade it sufficiently until more poorly trained conscripts are added from Russia itself.

According to Andrii Zahorodniuk, a former Ukrainian defense minister, if Ukraine can again come up with innovative battle plans and surpass Russia in tactical quality, it could regain seized land. No specific war plans have been revealed, but they would probably feature advanced drones and electronic warfare technologies to counter enemy drones. This is not the first time in the world when the army which is smaller [has] not [lost] to the army which is bigger; there are many cases like that. And every time there was some asymmetric advantage for the winner, with respect to recorded military history. Allowing Mr.Putin to claim any semblance of victory could lead the world down a path toward a lawless jungle, in terms of international law and order. These are my thoughts to your Stanley Wilkin elaborations on possible strategies.

_______________

For Tolstoy, “war is so unjust and ugly that all who wage it must try to stifle the voice of conscience within themselves.” For Dostoevsky, it is the “most civilized gentlemen who have been the subtlest slaughterers.” He was critical of so-called civilization that created men who gave flowery speeches about patriotism and freedom but show themselves to be “more bloodthirsty” than their less-refined ancestors.

While both of the great writers were exceptional in their understanding, I usually reference Grossman rather than Solzhenitsyn. While the latter became famous worldwide his later ideas contributed to the rise and wars of his old friend, Putin. Although we cannot always be responsible for what others make of our thoughts and beliefs, his rejecting of the West and ramblings on Mother Russia need to be remembered. Grossman's life reflected Russia's civilisational values as his works were disfigured by Communist apparatchiks including one of Putin's favourite authors, a pulp writer. The preference for the ugliness of the pulp writer and destruction of what might have been the greatest WW2 novel reflects more securely Putin's Russia.

Ukraine's present strategy is the right one to go down, destroying where possible Russia's economy. I agree with you, Stephen, as to the consequences of a Russian victory already seen in Trump and Mike Johnson in the USA, governance without ethics while pleading religious belief. USA politics and political institutions are being degraded. Therefore, any strategy is a good strategy as the world otherwise has much to lose and may otherwise face a descent into fascism where stupidity is the new state of comprehension. A world in which Hitler was never defeated and in the USA racism was never fought against and halted, women are thrown back into the kitchen and white rule re-established.

Thereby, to stop this, besides sheer barbarism and state murders and childnapping, the leading politicians in Russia must be targeted and each treated as on the frontline. The Duma is a legitimate target as they are supporting, each and everyone, these crimes.

Acting civilised to the uncivilised never works.

Stephen, on some of the issues above, Macron is considering sending 2000 troops to Ukraine. Not many. Hardly any. But NATO has acted in two ways. One nation steps up to the plate, and then others follow. The 2000 is around my suggestion as such a small amount will be registered but otherwise barely noticed. Nor will another 2000. Nor the next from say Germany or Denmark. Soon at least 20000 will be fighting in Ukraine with tanks and modern armaments.

The Russian military meat processing machine will be working overtime.

Remember, Putin's success in the election (sic) will mean jacking up of the Russian numbers sent to fight and another 200,000 could be immediately conscripted.

The non-profit organization Freedom House has been tracking the decline of liberal democracies for over a decade, with the situation reaching its lowest point in more than a decade in 2017

1

. The decline has continued, with 11 out of 29 countries experiencing a decline in democracy scores in 2023

2

. The decline is attributed to populist leaders and groups that reject pluralism and demand unchecked power, often at the expense of minorities and other perceived foes

2

. The decline is not limited to any particular region, with countries in every region experiencing a decline in democracy scores

2

. The decline is also reflected in the global struggle for democracy, with the gap between the number of countries that registered overall improvements in political rights and civil liberties and those that registered overall declines being the narrowest it has ever been through 17 consecutive years of deterioration

3

. The decline in liberal democracies is a cause for concern, as it can lead to a decline in individual freedoms, human rights, and the rule of law. It is essential for democratic institutions to be shored up to protect the most vulnerable citizens, both within and outside the region

4

.

1. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/democracy-crisis

2. https://freedomhouse.org/issues/democracies-decline

3. Freedom In the World, FIW, 2023, 50th Anniversary. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/FIW_World_2023_DigtalPDF.pdf

4. https://freedomhouse.org/article/human-cost-democratic-decline

Thanks, Zahra, but it doesn't mean its right. Few political systems remain the same.

I think this is neoliberal hysteria and anger that larger groups of people are rejecting the lies they were told in the 1990s about the benefits they and their children would receive by adopting neoliberal policies, none of which really came, and instead, they have found themselves every decade declining in status and economic power. I would strongly recommend reading Matthew Goodwin's data-driven book Values, Voices, and Virtue or his and Roger Eatwell's 2018 National Populism.

Fukuyama sold out to the foundations that fund his Academic positions, and like any such person, he constantly needs to play for his food. So he keeps peddling his rebooted (as his The End of History take died and was replaced by remodeling Huntington's Political Order and Changing Society) state-based political development theory of his two-volume Political Order series (2011 The Origins of Political Order and 2014 Political Order and Political Decay). His recent book on populism is mere popular op-eds rather than actual research-based items in contradistinction to what Goodwin is doing.