American scientist and author Francis Fukuyama reviewed a new book by New York University historian and professor of history, Ruth Ben Giat, "Tyrants: From Mussolini to Today."
Before commenting on the book in the New York Times, Fukuyama wrote that since the 2016 elections, observers such as Timothy Snyder, Stephen Levitzky and Daniel Ziblatt have speculated that Donald Trump could undermine American democracy and move the country in an overtly authoritarian direction.
This prospect became more plausible over the years of the Trump administration, as he sought to undermine the growing list of American institutions that stood in his way, including the intelligence community, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the courts and the major media - which he described as "enemies of the American people" - and, of course, integrity. The election itself.
Promises to Ben Giat Fukuyama indicated that she contributed to this section with a book comparing Trump to a wide range of former dictators, including Mussolini, Italy, Hitler, Nazi Germany, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Francisco Franco, Spain, Muammar Gaddafi, Libya, Silvio Berlusconi, Italy, Mobutu Sese, and Congo, as well as contemporaries such as Victor. Urban Hungary, Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, Vladimir Putin, Russia, Narendra Modi, India, and others.
Fukuyama criticized the book for not providing a conceptual framework for distinguishing between the different types of autocrats, and providing very little insight into Donald Trump and what is already widely known.
What the book presents instead is an endless series of historical anecdotes about a heterogeneous group of bad leaders ranging from democratically elected nationalists like Modi India to genocide fanatics like Hitler.
Since the 2016 election, observers such as Timothy Snyder, Stephen Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt have speculated that Donald Trump could undermine American democracy and move the country in an overtly authoritarian direction.
Fukuyama asked about the logic that Silvio Berlusconi placed in the category of Muammar Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein itself, and commented that Berlusconi might have been mean, manipulative and corrupt.
But he did not kill political opponents or support terrorism abroad, and he resigned after losing the election.
Ben Ghayat notes that many autocratic leaders came to power in the 1960s and 1970s through military coups;
But it is very likely that they will be elected today.
And here Fukuyama asked: Wouldn't it be good to know why coups have largely disappeared?
His choice of cases was considered completely random, and he cited the example of left-wing rulers such as Fidel Castro Cuba, Hugo Chávez, Venezuela or Ecuadorian Rafael Correa, that they were not mentioned, nor were women like Indira Gandhi.
If we focus on populists in democratic countries, why do we include autocratic leaders, who have never faced elections, Fukuyama asked?
He believed that the analytical framework would allow us to understand how powerful rulers differ from one another, rather than grouping them into one opaque category.
It was described as very bad;
Because Trump really deserves a more nuanced comparison with other leaders, and he saw that there are indeed certain similarities between him and contemporary populists like Urban in Hungary and Jaroslaw Kaczynski in Poland, given that they all depend on a similar rural social base for their support.
On the other hand, there are unjustified differences, including, for example, Orban, Duterte and Naybe Bukele from El Salvador using the Covid-19 pandemic to expand the executive power considerably, while Trump did the opposite, relinquishing responsibility and transferring power to state governors.