The era of the strongmen is on the decline

Not so long ago, autocratic leaders, the so-called “hardliners,” were on the rise. Leaders like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Xi Jinping, Mohammed bin Salman, and Jair Bolsonaro were gaining increasing influence and power, and were the envy of aspiring autocrats like US President Donald Trump. Democracy and freedoms were in retreat around the world. Even in the United States, constitutional checks and balances seemed outdated, while so-called conservatives extolled the virtues of a “single executive.” Commentators and academics wrote books like “The Age of the Hardliners: From Mussolini to the Present,” explaining how democracies were failing and considering the possibility of a kind of “coalition of the powerful.”

The appeal of “strongman” rule was an expected reaction to the many mistakes that leading democratic leaders had made over the past few decades. The United States had fought and lost several senseless wars, suffered a financial crisis, failed to hold any of its perpetrators accountable, and continued to be led by gerontocratic politicians who were unwilling to hand over power to a new generation. Britain had been through a succession of incompetent prime ministers whose main contributions were material for comedians and satirists. France had endured the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy, Italy had to endure the operetta politics of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and even more capable leaders, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, had ultimately floundered. In a time of economic stagnation, rising refugee and migrant flows, exaggerated fears of terrorism, and other crises, the temptation to turn to a “strong leader” who promised to protect ordinary people from an uncertain future proved irresistible for many.

But the resounding election defeat of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán raises the question: has the era of autocratic hardliners reached its peak? This event could be seen as an isolated case, as Hungary is a small country and each country has its own unique political circumstances. Still, Orbán’s defeat stemmed from deep dissatisfaction with the consequences of his rule, and there are reasons to believe that today’s hardliners – and yes, they are all men – face a more uncertain future for the same reasons. Most of them have not proven successful in governing the country, which highlights the limitations of a system in which one strong leader determines national policy.

Let’s start with Orbán. He was clearly a very skilled politician, able to reshape Hungarian institutions to preserve his power while enriching himself and his close associates. What Orbán was not good at – or, it seems, not particularly interested in – was improving the lives of ordinary Hungarians, and that failure ultimately backfired on him. A combination of lackluster economic performance, corruption too big to hide, and a growing reliance on sycophants who had lost touch with the land paved the way for his downfall. If he had run the country better, instead of looking out for his own benefit, he would probably still be in power today.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, like Orbán, has proven himself to be remarkably adept at maintaining his grip on power, amassing vast wealth, and eliminating potential rivals, whether reformist politicians like the late Alexei Navalny or recalcitrant insiders like Yevgeny Prigozhin, who led the Wagner Group before falling out with Putin and dying in a suspicious plane crash. Until a few years ago, Putin was adept at playing weaker foreign policy cards. Unlike many Western observers, he had good reason to view NATO expansion and other Western moves as a serious and growing threat. But his response to the situation—and in particular his fateful decision to invade Ukraine in February 2022—proved to be a major mistake that Russia will feel for decades.

The cost to Russia has been enormous, its dependence on a richer and more dynamic Chinese partner has grown rapidly, and the country is falling further behind the rest of the world in the areas of science and technology on which future power will depend. Sweden and Finland have joined NATO, and Europe is rearming. Even a decisive victory over Ukraine—which is by no means certain—will not halt Russia’s decline among the great powers. Although Putin is likely to remain in power for the rest of his life, Russia will be less prosperous and less secure than it would have been under any other leader, and his brutal style of rule is unlikely to attract many imitators.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, like other hardliners, has proven to be brilliant and ruthless in consolidating and maintaining power, despite numerous mistakes. He has also skillfully used Turkey’s geopolitical position to extract benefits or concessions from others who seek its cooperation. Yet it is difficult to see his more than 20 years in power as a success story. Turkey’s economic performance has been disappointing – in large part due to corruption and Erdogan’s reckless meddling – while a foreign policy that once aimed for “zero problems with its neighbors” has ended up putting Turkey at odds with many of them. Given such a record, it is not surprising that Erdogan has increasingly resorted to increasingly hard-line methods to stay in power.

And then there is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. While his grip on power at home appears unshaken, the years he has effectively led Saudi Arabia have been sobering. To be clear, it made sense to try to modernize the kingdom’s economy, reduce its dependence on oil and gas, limit the power of the religious police, and improve the country’s international image through sporting and other major events, but the execution of that ambitious vision has been ineffective and impulsive. His early foreign policy moves, including a costly military intervention in Yemen and a misguided attempt to influence Lebanon’s domestic politics, have all backfired, and the brutal murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi has only made matters worse.

The grand ambitions of Mohammed bin Salman’s “Vision 2030” project — including building a vast futuristic city from virtually nothing — have run aground on practical and economic realities, and the sovereign wealth fund that finances the plans recently announced a significant reduction in their scope. It’s exactly the kind of fiasco one would expect in a system where no one can question the leader’s judgment or inject a dose of reality into his thinking.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not a true autocrat, having been democratically elected in a fair election and facing internal constraints, such as having to manage a fractured coalition. Yet he has proven himself a master of political survival, repeatedly managing to stay in power, thanks in no small part to America’s willingness to shield Israel from the consequences of his actions. The result of his long rule, however, is an Israel that is more deeply divided than ever, increasingly treated as a pariah state abroad, facing a sharp decline in public support in the United States, and still unable to eliminate its opponents despite repeated and brutal bombings. When you can only stay in power by keeping your country at war, that’s not a particularly convincing testament to your leadership.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has been remarkably adept at consolidating power, despite the various obstacles the Chinese Communist Party has tried to erect to prevent one-man rule, and he has made some thoughtful moves—like the accelerated development of green technologies—that are already yielding significant results and are likely to be even more valuable in the future. He has also benefited from the mistakes of American leaders, who have squandered trillions of dollars on pointless wars or acted as a predatory hegemon toward long-time U.S. partners. But Xi has failed to stabilize China’s economy, solve its serious demographic problems, gain control of Taiwan, or tackle chronic youth unemployment. And his seemingly endless purges of senior officials (including top military commanders) may be as much a sign of weakness as of strength. While he has been more successful than other hardliners, not to the extent that this model of government is superior.

Which brings us to Trump. He’s not a true autocrat, but who doubts he’d like to be? Recall: a president who thinks he’s “the only one who matters”; who likes to have his name plastered on every building in Washington; who expects humiliating expressions of loyalty from aides, cabinet members, and foreign leaders; and who wants to erect a giant triumphal arch in honor of — you guessed it — himself. The good news for those who prefer to live in a democracy is that Trump’s performance in his second term has been a complete debacle, according to opinion polls. His economic policies have hurt producers more than they’ve helped, fueled inflation, and increased the federal deficit.

His foreign policy has alienated traditional US allies for no real gain, and his decision to attack Iran two months ago was a strategic disaster. Cracks are already visible in the MAGA movement’s edifice: his support for Orban — including sending Vice President J.D. Vance to campaign for him — likely helped Péter Magyar defeat him, while some of his other foreign friends, like Britain’s Nigel Farage and Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, are distancing themselves from him. Trump has done more to demonstrate the dangers of the “unitary executive” concept than a thousand articles in legal journals could.

Meanwhile, some democratic systems and leaders are showing encouraging signs of recovery. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently won a landslide majority in parliament and has emerged as a reasonable and, so far, successful alternative to Trumpism. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has shown that strong convictions, a sense of humor, social media skills, and a relentless willingness to engage with political opponents can deliver results in elections. South Korea and Brazil have withstood coup attempts and swiftly prosecuted those responsible, something the United States failed to do after Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election. And voters in Hungary have decisively rejected Orbán’s clientelism and intimidation, while Péter Magyar, the incoming prime minister, plans to dismantle the illiberal political apparatus that Orbán has built.

I do not want to exaggerate this trend or sound overly optimistic about these developments. Many countries will continue to be led by autocratic leaders, and I would argue that some of these hardliners are more likely to remain in power for life than to voluntarily step down or be removed. Illiberal “democrats” like Trump or Erdogan (or Narendra Modi in India) are not going to disappear from the world stage anytime soon. And some of the world’s leading democracies—most notably the United States—face long-standing problems of polarization, political gridlock, high inequality, and the erosion of democratic norms.

Yet the confidence that the hardliners had a few years ago may be faltering, and their political failures have shown the limitations of relying on one man's decisions. As these failures become more apparent, Winston Churchill's famous dictum that "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others" is once again being invoked.

He is a columnist for the magazine "Forin Polisi" and a professor of international relations at Harvard University

Prepared by: A. Š.