Democracy today is shattered by the conspiracy of world leaders

The United States’ commitment to promoting democratic values worldwide has never stopped Washington from supporting military dictators and authoritarian rulers. Yet, Washington’s policy was supposed to oppose this. During the Cold War, one by one, developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America surrendered to the advanced capitalist world. At that time, these developing countries were subjected to massive military authoritarianism by Washington and its allies. Even today, the situation is not much different. Despite the massive contradiction between the ideals of the state and the harsh reality, there is nothing more important in politics today than democracy. However, there remains a vast difference between classical democracy and the democracy we witness around the world.

Right-wing groups have used popular slogans to exclude immigrants from the Global South or target religious minorities within their countries. The rise of these right-wing groups has created a major uproar against the deficit of democracy, but such superstitious and undemocratic practices are not new. Historically, they have deep roots. Democratic aspirations and the countless acts of authoritarian repression, especially those inherited from colonialism, can be traced back to this. Last year, freedom of expression declined in 35 countries, and 47 countries faced strict government censorship of the media. These instances clearly show that many countries, with a democratic facade, are now rife with election rigging, narrow policies, the suppression of civil rights, media censorship, weakened rule of law, persecution of minority groups, and disregard for any checks and balances that keep governments accountable.

Describing these undemocratic democracies, it is said that such regimes have become increasingly associated with the rise of right-wing politics in recent times. In countries like India, the United States, Hungary, Poland, and Austria, populist leaders have shown disdain for democratic institutions and norms, engaged in authoritarian behavior, and used inflammatory nationalist rhetoric in public speeches. These actions have deeply divided and polarized their societies. Recently, an article titled "The False Nationalism" in 'The Economist' stated that these populist leaders pray on public fear to stay in power. To spread and maintain this fear, they use institutions that hold governments accountable—such as free media, an independent judiciary, NGOs, and opposition parties—to stifle accountability. The global trend of democratic regression raises the question of what underlying factors are responsible for the rise of anti-pluralist populist leaders.

Each country’s situation is different, so there are no common threads. However, some general characteristics can be identified, although this is not an exhaustive list. Bitter conflict among political rivals, lack of tolerance for opposition, political maneuvering at all levels, and the ability to weaken democratic governance are some of the traits. The Pax Americana, the U.S.-led global order, is now nearing its end. In the past, many leftists fought against American imperialism, dreaming of a world order that led to today’s situation; but in reality, right-wing extremists have dealt the biggest blow to Pax Americana. U.S. right-wing extremists have always been more isolationist than liberal governments.

Now the question is: how will the key allied countries in Europe and East Asia, who have relied on the U.S. for security, respond in this situation? European leaders have held several urgent meetings and made bold statements. The European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, wrote on social media X that the world needs new leadership and that it is the responsibility of Europeans to take on this challenge. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer described it as a once-in-a-generation opportunity, promising to work with France to secure a just peace deal in Ukraine. France is the only country in Europe, apart from the UK, that possesses nuclear weapons. However, the most surprising remarks came from Friedrich Merz, Germany's potential future Chancellor. He had been a close ally of the U.S. but now says Europe must achieve independence from the United States. Former President Donald Trump betrayed America’s traditional allies, humiliated Ukraine, encouraged right-wing extremism, and supported aggressive autocrats. This could lead to democratic countries in Europe and East Asia initiating the formation of new defense alliances for their own interests. The shifts caused by Trump’s actions and the changes in the global order indicate the need for a new world order. However, there are major challenges in implementing such a system.

The European Union (EU) is not a military power in itself, and if military alliances were to be led by the UK and France, there would be doubts about whether they could replace the existing security guarantees provided by the U.S. If European countries want to form a military alliance as an alternative to NATO, it would take many years to implement. For this initiative to succeed, Germany’s leadership is essential, as Germany has the largest economy in the EU. In a 2011 speech in Berlin, Poland’s Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski said, “I fear German inaction more than German power.” Many European countries that once suffered under Nazi Germany’s occupation would likely agree with this sentiment, though this may not reflect all Germans’ perspectives, as some are still hesitant about increasing military power. This mindset has, in the past, brought Europe, and even Germany, to the brink of disaster. Furthermore, some Germans are sympathetic toward Russia. In the country’s recent national elections, the far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD) secured second place. This party is close to both Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and opposes supporting Ukraine. The situation in East and Southeast Asia is even more complex. None of the U.S. allies in this region, like Britain and France, possess nuclear weapons. Additionally, there is no military alliance like NATO in Europe that could counter China’s growing influence. Japan, which relies entirely on U.S. security cooperation, is America’s wealthiest ally. Similarly, South Korea also depends on U.S. security, as it is constantly threatened by nuclear-armed North Korea. U.S. support is equally vital for Southeast Asian nations, as they seek to protect themselves from Chinese aggression.

Then comes the issue of Taiwan, which does not have any formal security agreement with the United States. If Trump abandons Ukraine and makes a deal with Putin, he might be willing to sacrifice Taiwan's democracy in exchange for business relations with Chinese President Xi Jinping. If Pax Americana or the U.S.-led global order comes to an end in East and Southeast Asia, the only way to prevent China from establishing dominance over these nations is to form an Asian NATO. This alliance could include democratic nations like South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, as well as semi-democratic countries like Singapore and Thailand, and even authoritarian states like Vietnam. However, such an organization would face the same issues as the European one. Pax Americana in both Asia and Europe will inevitably come to an end one day. Many wealthy countries have entrusted their entire security to a superpower like the U.S., but this system has never been healthy in the long term, and the timing and method of its dissolution will be problematic. Just as democratic countries in Europe and Asia face threats from authoritarian coalitions like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, they may no longer be able to rely on America for assistance. This could leave them without time to build powerful defense systems. What could happen instead? When America abandons its allies, they may be forced to seek refuge under the umbrella of a new superpower. For instance, South Korea and Southeast Asian countries might turn to China; Britain might emphasize its special relationship with the U.S.

Germany or France may even seek help from Russia; Japan, having been left alone, may forget the trauma of Hiroshima and build its own nuclear weapons. However, these outcomes are not certain. Perhaps the Europeans will unite, and Trump’s threats will remain just words; maybe America will not leave Asia. But relying on these possibilities is unwise. Currently, the major democratic nations in Europe and Asia are the last bastion against authoritarianism. The responsibility for protecting democracy now falls primarily on Germany and Japan—countries that were once most responsible for destroying this freedom! We do not deny people's right to freedom and choice. People in any country should live according to their own preferences; this is natural. However, political parties are responsible for improving the quality of thinking, preferences, and aspirations of the nation and society. Their duty is to create an environment conducive to governance and policy development.

A progressive political ideology or culture should play a role in the qualitative transformation of society. But when the country falls into the hands of unethical, corrupt rulers, it suffers, falls behind, and enters crisis. Sri Lanka, which was advancing in education and development, witnessed a rare uprising due to poor leadership leading to political and economic crises. In Bangladesh, there is debate about the elections. Questions are arising about how the elections will be held and whether all parties will participate. Will such elections be acceptable both domestically and internationally? If that happens, citizens are worried about what direction the country will take. Will the current government be able to handle the situation as it has in the past, or will a popular movement, stemming from past and current crises, completely shake things up?

Raihan Ahmed Tapadar: Researcher and Columnist