Irish author Paul Lynch has been awarded this year’s Booker Prize, one of the most prestigious literary prizes in the English-speaking world, for his novel Prophet Song — and for good reason. With its harrowing vision of Ireland descending into tyranny, Lynch’s book perfectly captures the anxiety that characterizes our current political moment.
Not all critics were impressed. One reviewer described it as a “flapping turkey” of a book, criticizing Lynch for his sub-Orwellian themes and prose. Yet most reviews have been more favorable, with many lauding the book for reflecting mounting concerns about the future of parliamentary democracy in Western Europe and beyond. Lynch’s portrayal of a country sliding into authoritarian rule would certainly resonate with far-right leaders such as the triumphant Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and France’s Marine Le Pen.
Wilders’ stunning victory in the Dutch general election underscores the growing support for far-right parties across Europe. For more than two decades, he has been a vocal critic of the Netherlands’ immigration policies, frequently targeting the country’s Muslim community. His rise to prominence could be largely attributed to the blend of identity politics and simplistic solutions characteristic of today’s populist movements.
Proponents of liberal democracy have long worried about the influence of identity politics. While it is natural for individuals to identify with various familial, ethnic, religious and national groups, the principles of liberal democracy extend far beyond such affiliations. At their core is the recognition that managing a diverse, pluralistic society is a complicated task that requires more than just an electoral majority.
Throughout history, eminent political philosophers such as Cicero, Alexis de Tocqueville and Edmund Burke have emphasized the necessity of checks and balances on majority opinion in the interest of protecting minority rights — a pillar of liberal democracy. By contrast, today’s illiberal democracies might allow citizens to vote, but only after the ruling party has captured and hollowed out independent institutions and manipulated the system to guarantee that it would never lose.
This is not to say that identity does not matter. I am English and hold a British passport, but my great-grandfather was Irish. My faith is Roman Catholic, and politically, I identify as an old-fashioned, right-of-center Tory. I consider myself both a European and an internationalist. Most importantly, my family is the cornerstone of my personal identity.
Each aspect of my identity embodies values that I hold dear. I am a firm believer in tolerance and moderation, the rule of law and parliamentary democracy. I also sympathize with Pope Francis’ view that churches should not act as enforcers dictating how we live our lives. Instead, they should serve as hospitals, offering support and guidance to help us navigate life’s vicissitudes as best we could.
Moreover, I have always been skeptical of those offering simple solutions to complex problems. This skepticism is what drove me to oppose Brexit. Ultimately, the idea that British people could regain control and sovereignty over our national and individual futures by exiting the EU was revealed to be a delusion fueled by lies. Similarly, the promise that Brexit would restore the UK’s global stature has been thoroughly discredited. Instead of making it easier to control immigration, Britain’s departure from the EU has had the opposite effect.
Historically, immigration has often served as a catalyst for authoritarian populism. In the past, it led to the widespread persecution of Jewish communities and today, it is fueling hostility toward Muslim populations. In the Netherlands, as in Hungary and France, xenophobia and Islamophobia are the driving forces behind the rise of nationalist extremism and the erosion of liberal values.
The allure of populist authoritarianism grows when governments fail to deliver moderate and sensible responses to immigration or manage their borders effectively. Yet it becomes an even greater threat in periods of economic stress, particularly when democratic governments are unable to improve living standards.
Parliamentary democracies demand more sophisticated leadership than is necessary in authoritarian regimes. After all, democratic leaders must explain why complex issues cannot always be resolved by exploiting prejudices or resorting to cheap slogans. That is also why democracies, when they are well-run, tend to offer a higher quality of life than any alternative system of governance.
While it might appear easier for dictatorships like China to enforce their will, this approach often leads to diminished economic performance and reduced political legitimacy, as evidenced by the Chinese economy’s recent struggles. A surveillance state could crack down on dissent and restrict free speech, but such measures are unsustainable over the long term and tend to produce disastrous consequences.
In present-day China, the government actively suppresses any acknowledgment or remembrance of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, where hundreds if not thousands of students were killed. Despite these attempts to erase history, however, the memory of these events endures. As Tolstoy taught us, attempts to suppress dissent could sometimes transform a trickle of discontent into a tsunami that sweeps away authoritarian leaders and institutions.
Lynch’s Booker Prize-winning novel, with its unsettling premise, serves as a stark reminder of the chaos and hardship that political populism and authoritarianism invariably bring. If you are considering buying the book, however, you might want to delay reading it until after the holiday season. It is an important book, but not one that inspires light-heartedness and joy.
Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, is chancellor of the University of Oxford and the author of The Hong Kong Diaries.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS