Among her final acts as chair of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel requested that her colleagues endorse the two people handpicked by former US president Donald Trump to replace her. Following loud cheering, she announced that she would not even bother to ask if there were any “nays.” It was a telling moment — procedures meant to ensure a democratic process within the party were entirely replaced by acclamation.
Trump is hardly the only far-right populist leader to have subjugated a political party to his will. The hijacking of a party’s machinery is a common pattern among populists and would-be autocrats, and history shows that it can have truly dire consequences for a democratic political system. After all, turning your party into an autocracy is a logical first step toward turning your country into one.
True, appeals for democracy and pluralism within political parties can sound like idealism. Endless, exhausting, pedantic debates usually result in a “victory” for the most eloquent party hack — or perhaps for the person with no childcare responsibilities the next morning. Moreover, internal democracy — like primary elections in the US — might be structurally favorable to ideological purists who prefer extreme candidates, or it might elevate people who treat politics like a hobby and prioritize the process over the results.
Illustration: Mountain People
However, internal debates do often yield better policy ideas. At a minimum, the winners would have a stronger sense of the opposing arguments and the evidence for them. They also would be more likely to respect the legitimacy of the losers in any given intraparty debate. Since fellow partisans are supposed to share the same basic political principles, their differences usually come down to how those principles are interpreted and how policies based on them should be implemented. When the losers feel that they have gotten a fair hearing, they would be less likely to quit the party.
By respecting legitimate opposition within their own party, politicians demonstrate their commitment to the basic rules of the democratic game. When internal contests are close, the winners would continue to face off against other party heavyweights, who in turn might provide a check against them if they stray too far from the party’s core commitments — not least the commitment to democracy itself. Such heavyweights have credibility with party members and must be taken seriously.
However, Trump has transformed the Republican Party into something like a personality cult. Those criticizing him have been cast out and vilified (and often personally threatened with violence). Rather than treating former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley as a worthy adversary in what political theorist Nancy Rosenblum calls a democratic “regulated rivalry,” Trump denied her any standing in the party.
“She’s essentially a Democrat,” he said. “I think she should probably switch parties.”
Never mind that Trump himself appointed Haley as the US ambassador to the UN during his term as US president.
Equally telling, the Republican Party no longer even bothers to offer anything like a proper campaign program. Before the 2020 election, it simply reissued its 2016 program and pledged total fealty to Trump. A party with a real program can bear an election loss and simply redouble its efforts to bring voters over to its side the next time. It would have a much longer time horizon, rather than adopting the short-term perspective of an individual — a change that makes every loss seem existential.
Some politicians deal with this challenge by installing relatives as successors, thus turning a party into a quasi-dynasty or a political family business. That is what the Gandhi family did to the Indian National Congress, to the detriment of the party and Indian democracy alike. In France, Marine Le Pen leads the far-right party founded by her father; and Trump, of course, has just enthroned his daughter-in-law Lara Trump as cochair of the Republican National Committee, making the party also something like a family business.
Cult leaders can command their followers in ways that even the most charismatic politician cannot. A proper party would have found a way to stop Trump and his fanatical fans before the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021, and even after that, Republicans could have shown courage and some commitment to their own professed principles by impeaching Trump in February 2021.
Instead, they have spoken out only behind closed doors or after leaving politics. As a result, the party is now dominated by a leader with deeply authoritarian instincts, who is patently unfit for office. In the two-party system in the US, one of the parties is turning against democracy itself.
It is not just Trump, though. At one point while he was in office, former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro had no political party at all and thus no check on his power from somewhat like-minded politicians. Other far-right populists do have parties, but they run them in a highly autocratic fashion. Examples range from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Poland’s Jaroslaw Kaczynski, who had such a grip on the Law and Justice party when it was in power that he scarcely bothered to take a government post to rule the country.
Strengthening party regulations might help. In the Netherlands, the party of far-right populist Geert Wilders has only two members — Wilders and a foundation with one member, who just so happens to be Wilders. Such one-man rule (literally) would not be legal in neighboring Germany, where the country’s Basic Law affirms that parties’ “internal organization must conform to democratic principles.”
Yes, there is a limit to internal party democracy, it can tip into factionalism, which can turn off voters, and it can provoke unproductive or esoteric debates that make parties seem overly sectarian, but the Republican Party’s transformation into an authoritarian tool shows why such risks are worth taking.
Jan-Werner Mueller, professor of politics at Princeton University, is the author of Democracy Rules.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s