The shooting of former US president Donald Trump was the second assassination attempt on a populist political leader this year. Just two months ago, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico was seriously injured after being shot four times at close range, highlighting the danger posed by the resurgence of political violence around the world.
While the attempted assassinations of Trump and Fico have caused many liberals to tone down their rhetoric, such reactions miss the point. The driving force behind the rise of political violence is not criticism of authoritarians, but rather the failure of ostensibly functioning democracies to address accusations of criminality against populist leaders in a timely manner.
Like Trump, Fico was attacked in the midst of an unlikely political comeback, five years after he was forced to step down when his inner circle was implicated in the gruesome murder of investigative journalist Jan Kuciak and his girlfriend.
Regrettably, Slovakia’s pro-democracy parties failed to ensure that Fico was held accountable for his actions. In a remarkable 2022 showdown, Slovakia’s parliament voted against lifting Fico’s immunity from prosecution, preventing the authorities from arresting him on organized-crime charges. A year later, Fico returned to power and resumed his authoritarian agenda.
However, while Slovakia’s liberals have been outraged by the failure to strip Fico of immunity, in the US, the Democratic Party seems to be in denial. Many US liberals attribute the slow pace of the criminal cases against Trump to the inherent sluggishness of the justice system, overlooking the errors that have led to these delays.
Chief among these errors is US President Joe Biden’s appointment of Merrick Garland as attorney general. As early as 2022, Biden was reportedly frustrated with Garland’s reluctance to prosecute Trump for his numerous crimes, privately complaining that Garland was acting more like “a ponderous judge” than an aggressive prosecutor addressing a major threat to the US’ democracy.
However, Biden, adhering to longstanding norms, apparently did not share these concerns with Garland.
The resurgence of political violence should make us rethink these norms. While we might never fully understand the motivations of individual assassins, the spectacle of a major political figure being constantly accused of serious crimes yet evading justice for years creates inevitable social tensions. This is why prosecutors do not publicly label individuals as murderers or rapists without prosecuting them: Failing to act not only allows potentially dangerous criminals to roam free, but also risks stoking public fear and discontent.
In the wake of the attempt on Trump’s life, Fox News and other conservative media outlets repeatedly highlighted Biden’s comments about Trump being “an existential threat to our democracy” as an example of incendiary political rhetoric. The criticism is partly valid: accusations of fostering insurrection or engaging in other criminal activity should be proven in court, not used as fodder for election campaigns. Conversely, if these allegations are unfounded, it is indeed incendiary for Democrats to repeat them.
Other established democracies have demonstrated that former leaders can be held accountable for crimes they committed. Two former French presidents, Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy, were charged and convicted of corruption. In Brazil, former president Jair Bolsonaro was barred from running for office just a few months after his supporters stormed the Supreme Court and National Congress in an attempt to oust his successor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. One year later, Bolsonaro has already been indicted for money laundering and faces multiple criminal investigations.
Poland provides a particularly useful model for countries grappling with an authoritarian past. Since assuming office in December last year, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has taken a bold approach to safeguarding democracy, delivering on his promise to sweep away the corruption of the previous government with an “iron broom.”
For starters, Tusk appointed former ombudsman Adam Bodnar as the country’s chief prosecutor. Unlike Garland, Bodnar did not let misplaced concerns about the optics of prosecuting political opponents deter him from swiftly upholding the rule of law. Bodnar’s office did not wait for parliamentary inquiries to conclude before charging key members of the Law and Justice party with abuse of power, misappropriation of public funds and other felonies.
While Tusk refrains from interfering with Bodnar’s work or the independent courts, which would eventually determine the fate of the accused, he does not shy away from publicly explaining and defending his government’s aggressive prosecutorial efforts.
In numerous speeches and social media posts, Tusk has emphasized that the iron broom is not an end in itself, but rather a necessary step toward national reconciliation.
“That is what reckoning looks like. Zero politics, only substance. And after the reckoning and restitution time will come for reconciliation. Just as I promised,” he posted on X on July 3.
So far, Tusk’s bold approach has put populists on the defensive. Americans should take notice.
As extreme polarization and political violence threaten to undermine the US’ democracy, it is abundantly clear that authoritarian populists must be held accountable in a court of law, not just in the court of public opinion.
Maciej Kisilowski is associate professor of law and strategy at Central European University in Vienna.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the
RSS