United Against Unity: The Troublesome Rise of Right-Wing Authoritarianism in European Democracies

By: Clare Atkinson

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier was recently quoted during an interview regarding the conflict in Ukraine stating that one should not “underestimate the power of democracy”. However, democratic backslide among Western European nations is a worrying symptom of the recent reemergence of right-wing authoritarianism. This threat does not just plague ‘peripheral’ Eastern European nations, such as Poland and Hungary, but also countries who have fought to ‘defend democracy’ in territories around the world. Current political parties and national leaders are using modern tactics to appeal to a new generation of potential supporters. While right-wing populists used to unite around anti-communist messages, this rhetoric is antiquated and does not resonate with most voters today. Politicians such as British prime minister Boris Johnson and French presidential candidates Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour preach nationalistic sentiments, opposition to international institutions, and a socially conservative religious worldview to demonize pluralism and subtly promote autocracy through new channels of communication. This demonstrates the fragmentation of right-wing ideology in Europe which has the potential to degrade the current rules-based order and disintegrate international cooperation.

         Freedom House cites the United Kingdom as being one of the most free nations in the world in 2022, and the government cites “defending democracy” as one of its main policy goals. However, the administration of Boris Johnson has not only undermined European integration, but also used the media to spread dangerous messages. Johnson’s Brexit campaign touted the slogan “unleash Britain’s potential”- proclaiming a return to the supremacy enjoyed by the former British empire. This was supplemented by lies about the implications of continued EU membership, including costs incurred by the National Health Service from immigrants and foreign laborers, in an attempt to vilify European unity in favor of self-interested national unity. Furthermore, Johnson has been cited on several occasions for speaking out against immigration and making Islamophobic comments. While these messages may not seem detrimental to democratic order in isolation, the current media environment allows leaders to reach individual voters in ways that will specifically appeal to them, changing political discourse completely and allowing the Brexit referendum to pass.

         Although only candidates, Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour represent a chance for the far-right in France to gain a foothold in government like never before. Their blatant xenophobia – exemplified by Le Pen’s campaign promise of “keeping France for the French” and Zemmour preaching the “great replacement theory”, the idea that Muslims immigrants will ‘replace’ Europeans – has gained popularity. Beyond an outward hatred of immigration, Muslim immigration in particular, the only politician that rivals Le Pen in her stance against the EU is Zemmour. While these types of candidates have always existed in French politics, they rarely make it past the first round of elections, due to their lack of compromise and hence their inability to form a coalition. Now, with two politicians united in these fringe views and the growing unpopularity of the incumbent, the right-wing is more dangerous than ever in France.

         France and Britain are what many would consider two of the most stable democracies today, and yet they both exhibit worrying signs of right-wing authoritarianism. These two nations, and these leaders, are only a few examples of these sentiments in Europe, and their views and actions are relatively mild compared to others. Furthermore, the similarities in their respective ideologies show signs of potential cooperation around these anti-democratic objectives, further threatening the already struggling European institutions.

         Americans, and citizens of other long-established democracies, take the current liberal order for granted and do not consider the consequences that isolationism and autocratic rule could have on the entire globe. In an increasingly globalized world, we are now more than ever facing  complex problems which require unity, such as climate change and a global pandemic. Not only will a lack of cooperation prevent action against these issues, but it will continue to create conflicts and undermine the basic rights which we enjoy in our democracy. Right-wing populist leaders across Europe are spreading similar ideologies which not only undermines current European institutions, but could potentially facilitate new organizations who are unified on a platform of disunity. Becoming aware of the possibility of a democratic backslide in formerly stable democracies and recognizing the messages of leaders with authoritarian tendencies is the only way to curb the spread of this toxic ideology.


Note: This editorial was written prior to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE ON THE SPREAD OF COVID-19

By CC Smith

Coronavirus deaths officially surpassed one million globally, with the United States alone accounting for some 20% of deaths and 23% of total cases (John Hopkins Coronavirus Center). This is a staggering statistic on its own, but even more so when coupled with the fact that the U.S. accounts for 4% of the global population, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Many factors play a role in each country’s handling of the pandemic, with the most influential likely being national leadership, and perhaps culture itself in close second. The U.S., Land of the Free, is an individualistic culture, motivated by individual desires, independence, and freedom. South Korea, on the other hand, is a collectivist culture, prioritizing the wellbeing of the community and acting in accordance with group goals. 

There is a staunch difference in the spread of the virus between collectivist cultures versus individualistic cultures, with the former greatly trumping the latter in number of cases and deaths. When news of the virus in Wuhan emerged, almost without hesitation, the South Korean people temporarily sacrificed their individual liberties and allowed the government to handle the situation. The government itself then left decision-making in the hands of scientists and epidemiologists. Given the impact the 2015 SARS virus left on the nation, South Koreans knew the only way to get through it, was to get through it. Citizens agreed to install a COVID contact-tracing app that notified anyone upon exposure and would then willingly isolate for two weeks when and if they were exposed. The response was arguably pervasive given the government had access to the whereabouts of almost their entire citizenry, but South Korean citizens willingly complied with the guidelines and behaved in accordance with their collectivist values. In October, both the United States and South Korea reported their highest number of new cases. On the 23rd, South Korea reported 155 cases. The following day, the United States reported over 80,000 (CNN). 

To protect one another and the country at large from devastation, South Korean citizens willingly sacrificed parts of their freedom as soon as Wuhan went public with the news. Conversely, when COVID-19 began to spread in the U.S. in March, thousands of Americans proceeded with their spring break travel plans. As the economy gradually shut down in the following weeks, no mandatory guidelines, rather only suggestions, were emplaced -- only regarding how often Americans were allowed to leave their homes, due to the likelihood of massive retaliation and immediate calls for anarchy if stricter restrictions were instituted. To date, many Americans are still reluctant to even wear a mask, claiming that the government should not be allowed to tell citizens what to do. 

When citizens of a country act with one another in mind, comply with governmental guidelines, and do not give into every self-centered impulse they may have in times of global and national unrest, they will eventually find an equilibrium and be offered those freedoms again. When citizens of a country act with their own fleeting and individualistic desires in mind, the unrest will persist. 

EXPLAINING THE IRAN-CHINA DEAL

By Aria Zareibidgoli

Amidst tensions between the United States and China, the latter is pursuing a deal with another of America’s adversaries, Iran. The two countries seem to be in the closing stages of negotiations, developing an agreement that would signal increased cooperation in the decades to come.

The agreement signifies China’s defiance towards the United States’ aggressive policy attempts at isolating Iran and weakening its economy. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran nuclear deal, was initially supposed to relax the economic pressure on Iran through the removal and suspension of sanctions. However, the United States’ aggressive policy towards Iran resumed (arguably in a more drastic way than before) with the Trump administration’s abandonment of the nuclear deal, the reinstatement of sanctions, and among other additional measures, the outright threat of further sanctions against any buyers of Iranian oil. 

These policies have succeeded in crippling the Iranian economy; the country faces a deep recession, a significant decline in oil exports and production, and a currency that is plummeting in value. Given these conditions, it’s not hard to imagine why Iran would actively seek a deal with its leading trading partner, China.

Many have described the deal itself as an economic lifeline for Iran; according to a leaked draft of the agreement, China will invest in Iran’s infrastructure, energy, transportation, and banking sectors for 25 years. These investments seem to total in at around $400 billion. In exchange, China will receive Iranian oil at a heavily discounted price. Additionally, the agreement suggests increased military cooperation and intelligence sharing between the two nations.

It’s important to consider this development in the greater context of China’s expanding influence. The agreement is the latest step in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a policy aimed at investing in the development of various countries, primarily in Asia, Africa, and Europe. If the two nations finalize this deal, it will further establish China as a competitor to the US in pursuing dominance in the Middle East. This is especially relevant now when the United States is seeking to diminish their military presence within the region.

Importantly, the deal has emerged after western nations failed to maintain economic commitments outlined in the JCPOA. Therefore, this development also underscores that, following the abandonment of the Iran deal, Iran has moved to further create long-term plans with non-western nations to achieve economic stability. Importantly, this means that in placing intense economic pressure on the nation, the United States has pushed Iran further towards its global competitor, China.