Undermining democracy in Europe

Political sentiment can change over time. The question of what is considered mainstream depends on many factors, such as political events, public opinion and the media. In Ukraine there are also many political forces and ideas that can represent different directions and respond to challenges. However, it is important that the response to such challenges is based on respect for human rights and democratic values.

The scandalous Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban once again made a cynical statement about Ukraine , reproaching NATO countries for the “strategically wrong” decision to help Kiev after an open Russian invasion, since, in his opinion, the Russians will not lose, and there will be no change of power in the Kremlin. Days earlier, his ideological ally, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, called Russian aggression against Ukraine a “frozen conflict,” insisting on “negotiations” between Kiev and Moscow. European supporters of “compromises” with Kremlin dictator Vladimir Putin have clearly perked up amid the unexpected victory of far-right forces in the parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, as well as anticipating the growing popularity of the right in key EU states – Germany and France. Anti-European and far-right sentiments, as Western analysts admit , are unfortunately becoming mainstream, which carries certain risks for Ukraine. Why right-wing, anti-liberal values ​​have become so relevant for Westerners and what could be Ukraine’s most optimal response to such a threat, read in the author’s column “Apostrophe” by political psychologist Svetlana Chunikhina.

The beneficiaries of democracy and free elections in the world are increasingly becoming forces that have little respect for both democracy and freedom. In the parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, the leader in terms of the number of votes received was Geert Wilders and his and the Freedom Party (what an irony!) - an extreme right-wing political force that advocates for the country to leave the EU and cleanse it of Muslim migrants. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban greeted the news with an enthusiastic tweet that a “wind of change” was blowing from the Netherlands. Orbán, who has held office for a total of 17 years, is happy about the “changes” for good reason: he and Wilders are like-minded on at least two issues – Euroscepticism and loyalty to Putin’s Russia.

In Slovakia, the new (old) prime minister following the September elections was Robert Fico, leader of the Direction - Social Democracy party (democracy!). Another friend of Putin in Europe.

A year earlier in France, the far-right party Marine Le Pen was able to increase the number of its mandates in parliament 10 times.

Elections to the German Bundestag are scheduled for 2025. And there looms the success of the far right - the Alternative for Germany is confidently gaining political weight. The number of opponents of military and political support for Ukraine in the war against Russian aggression at the helm of European states is growing.

All these parties and all these politicians, in addition to anti-Ukrainian sentiments, are united by a common desire to “cut themselves out” of open Europe. And from the open world, by and large, too. Their goal is, if not autarky, then something close to it. A return of societies to an authentic past, without Muslim migrants and contributions to maintain the European bureaucracy. And their voters largely agree.

Donald Trump wants something similar for the United States, and with him, according to recent measurements, 47% of Americans want the same thing. Wall off migrants. Break with Euro-Atlantic commitments. Taking America back to its roots. And the chances that he will become president again are great.

And here is another political sensation of recent times - former TV presenter and businessman Javier Miley became the President of Argentina. At first glance, he bears little resemblance to the figures listed above. He wants to replace the national currency with the dollar, does not like Putin and other leaders of the unfree world, and, on the contrary, values ​​freedom above all else. But if you dig deeper, you can see common reasons in his political triumph and in the successes of European populists - he, like them, won the elections on a wave of popular protest against the hateful establishment.

And it seems that this is the nerve of the present moment. Modern politics (and politicians) are close to moral bankruptcy. EdelmanTrustBarometer's annual survey of public opinion in 27 countries shows that people have less and less trust in institutions. Not only to the government, but also to the media and public organizations. One exception is business. People trust business everywhere, but that’s not even the problem. The problem is the dramatic gap in trust between rich and poor. From the point of view of the first, the world is quite reliable, and institutions work properly. For the latter, this is far from the case, and institutions are only capable of inaction or betrayal.

Or something else. According to the WorldInequalityLab project, over the past 200 years the gap between rich and poor in the world has increased markedly. In 1820, the poorest 50% of the world's population controlled 14% of global income, but by 2020 their share of the global pie had fallen to 7%. These 200 years included two French revolutions, one October socialist revolution, two world wars, and countless smaller wars and revolutions. Despite all the efforts, battles and experiments, the world's political system has failed to generate more justice and security. It is naive to believe that Trump, Fico, Orban, Wilders or even Miley will be able to radically change anything for their citizens. But citizens really want at least someone to finally be able to do it.

In addition to the movement of the tectonic plates of world political history, countries are pressured by their own challenges. In the case of Argentina, this is a deep economic crisis. In the case of the United States, there is a political split and, possibly, the exhaustion of the two-party system. In the case of Hungary and Slovakia, it is the unexamined socialist past. Populism, an anthology of simple policy prescriptions, seems to be the most obvious, if misguided, response to complex political and economic circumstances.

In addition to the old and new circumstances, there are also personal relationships between populist and far-right leaders and Putin (Miley, let me remind you, is a happy exception to this sad pattern). These politicians speak different languages, but they truly love only one - the language of power. Their power fascinates them, corrupts them morally and, to be honest, financially. Their desire to certainly take the side of the strong determines their position in the Russian-Ukrainian war. And what does all this mean for us in Ukraine? How should we feel about this parade of connoisseurs of Putin’s policies in Europe? No way. Because the only victory that concerns us is victory in the war.