“Liberty, equality, fraternity”

These are the values that underpin democracy—the dominant form of government today. In 1941 there were only 11 democracies; today nearly six-tenths of the world’s nations are democratic. Yet this is no cause for celebration.

A study conducted in 2017 by Freedom House, an American think-tank, found that for the 12th consecutive year, countries that saw a decrease in their democracy index outnumber those with an increase. The Economist Intelligence Unit states that the democracy index of 89 countries has diminished, compared to only 27 improving. In emerging economies, according to the “Transformation Index” of the Bertelsmann Foundation, another think-tank, the quality of democracy is at its lowest level in the last 12 years. Such studies do not simply measure the presence of democracy (i.e. the sovereignty of the people); they also account the degree of liberal democracy—the existence of a freely elected government preserving the individual rights of its residents, respecting the rule of law and maintaining the separation of state powers.

This distinction between liberal democracy and a non-liberal democracy is key indication of today’s world’s issues with democracy and its backsliding into authoritarianism: democracies are still having elections, yet the protection of peoples’ liberties (e.g. individual and minority rights) and the resilience of independent institutions (e.g. justice system) are slipping. Poland’s de facto leader, Jarosław Kacyński, is ousting his opponents in Poland’s judiciary system by lowering their retirement age. According to the Human Rights Watch, in his “war on drugs”, president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, killed more than 12,000 people—many of them extrajudicially. Turkey’s president, Recep Erdogan, has jailed around 200,000 people for their alleged involvement with the Gulen Movement—an Islamist sect that attempted to overthrow Turkey’s government in a coup in 2016, according to Erdogan. Proof for arrests included holding an account in a Gulen-owned bank, attending a Gulen school or even possessing $1 bills. Yet all these politicians were elected democratically or are part of a legal, power-holding political party; they abide by democracy but not liberal democracy.

Today, authoritarians—or politicians with authoritarian tendencies—are gaining power thanks to economic and social plight. Poland is facing an identity crisis following its break from communism: Jarosław is using it to enforce his policies (i.e. claiming return to traditional, pre-communist values). Duterte campaigned on “drug war” policy—promising to eradicate drug crimes from society. Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro—who has, during multiple occasions, expressed positive views of torture and military presence in government—swore to revitalize Brazil’s economy and purge government corruption. Aspiring authoritarians have turned to populism.

Times of social and economic weakness are precious for populists. They permit them to win elections by proposing no new policies, but by gaining support through fear-mongering and nationalism. In a position of power, they effectuate political changes in order to secure their influence. The menace today is that since these authoritarians are populists, the population adores them—despite their infringement of democratic values. In fact, most voters support these aspiring authoritarians for their illiberal spirit. Simply listen to cheers at a Trump rally after he expresses desire to kill journalists, or watch interviews of Russians gleefully supporting Putin’s controversial “anti-gay propaganda law”, which basically proscribes public mention of homosexuality under the pretext of it being propaganda.

The nature of authoritarianism has changed. Totalitarian dictatorship—like in Iran and North Korea—is fading. Instead, today’s authoritarians are populists cleverly and sneakily dismantling democratic institutions thanks to the populace’s support. Iranians protest against their dictatorial regime, yet the power of the aforementioned populists is growing; people support them not despite but for their authoritarian tendencies. Thus, resilience from democratic institutions (i.e. justice system, free press, senate etc…), strong anti-populist voter turnout at major elections and effective anti-populist political coalitions (e.g. France’s Populaire Front coalition against Fascism and Nationalism in the 1930’s) are necessary to protect liberal democracy—the only democracy that truly matters.

The world in 2019 is still recovering from the Great Recession that plagued the last decade. There are even talks of the Recession’s strain on the world’s financial systems returning, possibly triggering another global financial crisis. Yet despite the economic threats of the Recession, another challenger to the world’s financial and political positions looms: populism in politics.

The impact of economic crisis on politics—especially when it bolsters populist candidates—is not new phenomenon. During the Great Depression, Germany’s populist, ultranationalist Nazi Party’s membership soared from around 100,000 followers before the crisis to almost a million adherents in 1929, during the crash. The same happened in Russia when, after the immense poverty and economic ruin caused by the First World War (1914-1918), politician Vladimir Lenin orchestrated a workers’ revolution ousting Russia’s emperor, Tsar Nicholas. And in Italy, Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini’s anti-democratic, anti-liberal policies were strengthened due to a severely weakened economy. Populist candidates gained the favor of the majority by claiming to change the status quo.   

Similar consequences occur today. Following the longest recession in their history, Brazil elected the radical right-wing Jair Bolsonaro. In Germany due to the economic pressure of the migrant crisis on jobs, far-right nationalist parties, such as the AfD, are making a comeback in parliament—winning 12.6 % of votes in the 2017 federal election (the third highest amongst the six parties in parliament). France’s election was a battle between the radical Marine Le Pen (of the National Front Party) and political outsider Emmanuel Macron (of “La République en Marche” party). The USA elected political outsider Donald Trump. Italy’s current government is a populist coalition between the Five Star Movement and the Matteo Salvini’s far-right party.

Just like their older counterparts, today’s populists arose during difficult financial times—times of economic pressure. Throughout France’s election unemployment was at around 10%. In Germany and the USA there are fears of migrants taking jobs. Ordinary Italians are apprehensive of out-of-control immigration and are still reeling from the effects of the Great Recession (the country’s debt is almost 132% of GDP and unemployment hovers at around 10%). Brazilians are tired of government corruption, poverty and their almost never-ending Recession. A poor or pressured economy is breeding ground for radical populists.

Populism is a toxic political ideology that leads to myriad conflicts, global crises, and strained national, ethnic, and economic ties between nations. The populists of the 1930’s—Germany’s Nazis and Italy’s fascists—started the largest conflict the world has ever seen: World War II. Brazil’s president expresses views akin to the military dictatorship that ran the country between the 1960s and the early 1980s, including expressing positive views towards torture, a bolstering of military presence in government, and homophobic rhetoric. Matteo Salvini’s remarks have drawn criticism from European powers, mainly in regards to his hardline immigration policy, and his budget reforms may potentially result in Italy getting sanctioned by the EU for reckless spending. Donald Trump is already destroying multilateral ties, engaging in a massive trade war pitting America against the world. His foreign policy—including his ignorant support of Saudi Arabia despite the Kashoggi murder—and his hardline policy on Iran have drawn widespread criticism from American allies. Global peace is at risk: populist policy is completely opposite of the multilateral trust that is holding the world together.

Parties opposing populism must not, however, ignore the hardships of hardworking people under the pretext of them supporting populist candidates or movements. Italians should not direct violent actions towards ethnic minorities, yet their concerns of out-of-control immigration hold some value: with thousands of immigrants washing on its shores, Italy may fail to accommodate such a vast number of work-seeking arrivals, especially since its unemployment rate is already at around 10%. France’s gilet-jaune (“yellow vest”) uprising involves the scornful destruction of historic buildings and shops, but such crimes are that of a small minority, and the movement highlights important issues with Macron’s fuel tax and France’s city geography and economy. A French farmer needs to drive up to 50km when picking-up his child from school because his district lacks one; Macron’s fuel tax heavily impacts him. And he pays this tax on top of his financial struggles— which are consequences of intense competition from Chinese and Brazilian farmers who produce far more than he does thanks to looser labor rights and less regulation on product quality in their respective countries. He has the right to dissent. By properly taking into account the protests of the populace, non-populist politicians can direct the nation onto the proper route to solve these issues instead of blindly rejecting them.

Populists are a dangerous element of democracy. They propose no solutions, simply campaigning and winning elections thanks to the plight of the populace. Yet we must not cast aside the people for they vote radically for a reason, and fixing the problems that compel or force them to do so are key to stopping populism. Instead of elitist rhetoric, major parties must understand the population—and fix its problems accordingly.

Much of today’s political and economic debate is centered around China. In America, president Donald Trump babbles of China’s economic policies, and hopes to curb them through a trade war. On the other hand, Europe is rapidly opening up to Chinese investment: in 2016, China invested $40bn in the region— double that of 2015. Talk of China’s booming trade and investments is at a high point, as Western citizens come to regard the 21^st century as the “Chinese century”.

Yet China has always, throughout history, been a world economic power. In the year 1500 A.D. it accounted for around 25% of the world economy, more than any country in the world; in the year 1900 this figure was 11%, second only to the USA, and today it’s at 17%—practically on par with America. But in  past centuries China had few trading partners—meaning its economic influence was really only felt in those countries. Today, however, through the world’s globalized nature, China’s influence—permeated through its products—resounds in every corner of the world.

Globalization has allowed China to export its products to practically all world markets. Thanks to the economic development of today’s countries which results in overwhelming demand for new goods, Chinese products spread faster and in larger quantities than ever before. A French consumer nearly 5000 miles away from China will feel the impact of Chinese production cutbacks, as the price of everything from TV’s, toys and everyday utensils will skyrocket; in 1500 A.D. there were no such consequences: the majority of everyday products where furnished by local industries, protected by heavy state tariffs. Globalization has allowed China to access a wide range of markets around the world, contributing immensely to its economic prowess.

China’s usage of its powerful commercial capacities as a political tool is worrying. In their recent article concerning China, The Economist reports of Chinese meddling in European affairs: in 2017, Greece halted the European Union from criticizing China’s human rights record at a UN forum, perhaps due to the overwhelming amount of capital China invested in the country. Academics worry of similar consequences with other European countries, like Moldova and the Czech Republic, who both welcome large Chinese investment and host arrays of Chinese investors. The same can be said for Chinese investment in Central, South Asia and the Middle East: Chinese investors pay little attention to human rights records, meaning they are much more likely to invest their capital in those respective countries compared to their European or American counterparts. That same capital can be used to buy strategic political and military allies. Trade and economic co-operation between China, Europe and the rest of Asia can be a great boon to all, yet they must be careful not to aid China too much in its power struggles.

America must not, however, wage trade wars on China. Despite President Trump’s claims of bolstering American industry and creating more jobs, the figures simply don’t add up: according to some estimates by Trade Partnership Worldwide, an economics government consulting firm, tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminium will result in the gain of around 26,000 jobs but the loss of more than 400,000. The American steel industry might benefit from tariffs, but costs of steel and aluminium will rise exponentially, hurting other industries (e.g. car industry). To make matters worse, Trump has not only put tariffs on Chinese metal but also on European, Canadian and Mexican steel and aluminium. This means American companies will have no choice but to turn to American industry which, on its own, cannot provide the supply of metal needed (hence the job loss). If the trade war continues, China, the USA, Europe and the rest of the world will entangle themselves in a bloody tariff melee, resulting in overwhelming loses for everyone—America included.

The world must not provoke China through trade wars, nor shun it through protectionism. Instead, it must favor economic co-operation all while making sure it does not strengthen too much the world’s second largest economy’s interests.

The 3^rd French Republic (1870-1940) was an instrumental republic in European history, whose actions lead to the establishment of countless laws and articles taken for granted in today’s democracies. In order to properly understand the importance of these laws, how to enforce and protect them, as well as how to make change in society, looking back to the French III Republic gives key insight.

The origins of the French III Republic go back to September 4, 1870, when a provisional French government was established following the collapse of the 2^nd French Empire during the Franco-Prussian war. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, the French emperor, had surrendered himself to the Germans following the Battle of Sedan, leaving France without a ruler. At the same time, a new movement was underway, led by radical socialists who wanted to continue the fight against Germany and a return to the old Republic: The Paris Commune of 1871.

The uprising was eventually quelled by French forces stationed at Versailles, engendering the death of 15,000 rebels and 20,000 deportations (they were transported to overseas colonies; E.g. New Guinea, New Caledonia, etc…). The movement did not end in vain for these Republicans, however, as between 1875 and 1879 they install a Parliament thanks to constitutional laws established during previous regimes, and in the following years they win the parliamentary and presidential elections. The new Republic begins to take form.

Following the elections, Republicans begin to pass laws that shape the fate of our modern democracies. These laws include the freedom of the press, the right to assemble, the right to associate and the right to vote for the male population. More ambitious reforms also took place in order to decrease social gaps between upper and lower classes. The first (and arguably most significant) reform was the creation of a completely secular school system by Jules Ferry in 1882, which was public, free and mandatory; religion was a personal matter but knowledge applied to everyone. The ideals of the French Revolution and the Spring of Nations (revolutions of 1848) were finally put into practice, creating one of the world’s first secular Republics. A law was even passed in 1905 comprehensively detailing the separation between Church and State, making it one of the first nations with laws protecting its citizens’ freedom and their independence from religious sects. Moreover, the practice applied to every citizen as slavery had been abolished in 1848.

The French 3^rd Republic also became Europe’s first truly unified Republic, as France’s people were united under a set of ideals. The adoption of a national motto (“liberty, equality, fraternity”), a national flag, anthem and other symbols (e.g. the bust of Marianne, symbol of the first French Revolution) all served as reminders of the Republic’s mores, contributing to France’s national unity. Military service was also introduced as a way of promoting dialogue between social classes: the rich and the poor would serve together.  The religious establishment was still respected as well: families were allowed to retain their children from going to school on Sundays on the behalf of religious beliefs, for this was a personal choice of the families, not concerning the education of future citizens.

Near the turn of the century, however, the Republic began to destabilize and neared its downfall. The Dreyfus affair, the rise of Revanchism as well as the economic ramifications of World War I (1914-1918) all contributed to this demise. The onset of the Vichy Regime following a French defeat at the hands of Nazi Germany in World War II, however, sealed it. A Provisional Government was proclaimed in the aftermath of the Allies’ liberation of France against Nazi Germany, in late 1944, and a new Republic, the 4^th Republic, was created shortly thereafter in 1946.

In all aspects the French 3^rd Republic was a great example of a just democracy: a country where its citizens have the right to vote, laws protecting their liberties as well as restrictions on the conduct of third-parties (e.g. the Church) in public affairs and schoolwork. It set the example for nations to come, and its policies on the preservation of national unity emulated by further republics.  Even today the current French government wants a return to some of these policies, (e.g. reintroduction of military service), demonstrating its ongoing influence.