"Xi, Putin and Trump... the follies of tyrannical rulers";

With this remarkable headline, Thomas Friedman began his article in the New York Times, saying that the past five years have been a major class in comparative politics, because something happened that we had never seen before at the same time, as the 3 most powerful leaders took In the world - Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese Xi Jinping and former US President Donald Trump - drastic steps to cling to power after their specified terms.

One failed, two succeeded, and herein lies a story that says a lot about our world today.

Trump failed for one very simple reason: American institutions, laws, and norms forced him hard to relinquish power at the end of his four years, despite his efforts to distort the election and unleashing his supporters to intimidate lawmakers into annulling his loss in the ballot.

As for Putin and Xi, they are not constrained by democratic institutions and norms;

They made new laws that effectively make them presidents for life.

Friedman commented that despite the problems democracies face today, they still have some things that authoritarian regimes lack, such as the ability to change course, often by changing leaders, and the ability to openly examine and discuss alternative ideas before embarking on a course of action.

These traits are especially valuable in an age of accelerating technology and climate change, when the odds are low that a single person in their late 60s - like Putin and Xi - will make better decisions as they get older.

Putin's performance in Ukraine is an advertisement that clearly indicates the dangers of having a president for life, who believes he is indispensable and infallible

The writer stated that this can be seen clearly in the case of Putin, whose performance in Ukraine seems to indicate clearly the dangers of having a president for life who believes that he is indispensable and infallible.

Friedman criticized Putin's war in Ukraine, stressing that he miscalculated in everything;

He overestimated his armed forces, underestimated Ukrainians' willingness to fight and die for their freedom, and completely misread the West's desire, both governments and corporations, to unite in order to support Ukraine.

He reasoned that either he fed on the nonsense of his aides who were afraid to tell him the truth, or he was so sure of his infallibility that he never asked himself, or prepared his government or society for what his spokesman described as an "unprecedented" economic war by the West.

anarchic democracies

The writer added that all we know for sure is that Putin banned all media criticism and made it impossible for the Russians to punish him at the polls for his barbaric folly.

As for China, the writer considered it more serious because it has lifted about 800 million Chinese out of extreme poverty since the 1970s.

Its current president considered Xi more serious than Putin.

Yet Friedman sees the dangers of authoritarianism clear there, including that Xi was unwilling to seriously investigate how the coronavirus came about, or at least share any findings with the world, apparently fearing that doing so might reflect poorly on his leadership.

In sum, anarchic democracies, for the time being at least, have presidents for life, stifling all sources of dissent.

The writer concluded by noting that in order for the authoritarian wave to disappear permanently, two things are necessary;

The first is the failure of Putin's barbarism in Ukraine, which could cause him to lose power, and the second, more important, is that America will need to demonstrate that it is not only good at forging alliances abroad, but also capable of building healthy alliances again at home to provide good governance. and growth and uncontested transmission of power, nurturing a more perfect union.