In a time of rising populism, Professor Eric Beinhocker explains how populist leaders capitalize on economic grievances and social distrust to fuel their movements. “When people feel the system is unfair and rigged, they seek someone to blame,” he says, pointing out how populists exploit feelings of broken social contracts to gain political traction. According to him, trade wars and economic nationalism further exacerbate global instability. “No country can make an iPhone alone,” Professor Beinhocker states, stressing that interconnected supply chains make protectionism self-destructive. Tariffs and trade barriers, he warns, will “lower living standards and harm American competitiveness” rather than protect workers. This insightful discussion unpacks the economic forces fueling populism and the fragility of global trade.
In an era of rising political polarization and populist movements across the globe, the erosion of trust in institutions has become a defining challenge for democracies. In an intriguing interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Eric Beinhocker, Executive Director of INET Oxford and Professor of Public Policy Practice at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, discusses how populist politicians leverage the breakdown of the social contract to fuel political movements. He introduces the concept of the “psychology of broken contracts” as a key factor in the rise of populism, arguing that when people perceive a fundamental violation of fairness, “some of our strongest emotions arise from fairness violations,” leading to anger, resentment, and a desire to strike back—a phenomenon that populist leaders exploit.
According to Professor Beinhocker, the modern economy has undergone major shifts since the 1970s, particularly in Western democracies, where working-class citizens and those outside major metropolitan centers increasingly feel “the system isn’t working for them—that it is unfair, rigged, and benefits others at their expense.” He argues that these perceived injustices—whether economic or political—create fertile ground for populist rhetoric, which provides “a clear enemy,” often framed as elites, immigrants, or individuals outside of one’s identity group. Populist politicians, he explains, thrive on these grievances, “preying on and exploiting the psychology of broken contracts to gain political traction.”
A crucial factor accelerating this process, Professor Beinhocker contends, is the role of social media. While he does not see it as the primary cause of populism, he acknowledges its role in intensifying moral outrage. “Social media algorithms quickly identify that the content generating the most engagement is that which triggers moral outrage,” he explains, reinforcing tribal identities and making “resetting these emotions incredibly difficult.” Populist leaders capitalize on this dynamic, using divisive narratives to deepen distrust in institutions and erode democratic norms.
To counteract these trends, Professor Beinhocker suggests that restoring trust requires rebuilding fairness and re-establishing a strong social contract. He argues that past leadership, such as Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, demonstrated how governments can “reset the social contract” through economic reforms, symbolic policies, and direct engagement with public concerns. However, he warns that “merely talking about trust is not enough—people need to experience fairness and institutional accountability.”
This interview provides a thought-provoking analysis of the intersection between economic shifts, political trust, and the psychology of populism, offering essential insights for scholars, policymakers, and citizens alike.
Despite recognizing the difficulties brought by growing authoritarianism, Dr. Roberto S. Foa of Cambridge University maintains a measured optimism regarding the prospects for democratic renewal. He highlights historical patterns of democratization and shifts in public opinion—such as those triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Trump presidency—as indications that democratic principles can regain strength in response to perceived threats. However, he cautions against generalized solutions, stressing that each democracy grapples with distinct institutional and political hurdles that demand context-specific strategies for revitalization.
The resilience of democracy in the face of mounting global challenges has become one of the most pressing questions of our time. As populist leaders continue to gain traction, democratic norms erode, and authoritarian tendencies rise, many scholars and policymakers are left wondering whether these trends signal a long-term shift or a temporary setback in the cyclical evolution of governance. Dr. Roberto Stefan Foa, Assistant Professor in Politics and Public Policy at Cambridge University, has dedicated his research to understanding the dynamics of democratic deconsolidation and the conditions necessary for democratic renewal.
In this interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Foa provides a nuanced perspective on whether the recent wave of democratic backsliding—evident in both Western and emerging democracies—represents an irreversible decline or a phase within a broader historical pattern. He highlights the importance of distinguishing between informal and formal democratic norms, explaining how social media, populist rhetoric, and political polarization have eroded basic principles of civility and accountability. However, he also underscores the resilience of institutions, particularly in Western Europe, where robust political frameworks have mitigated some of the more extreme consequences of democratic decline.
A key theme in this conversation is the role of economic hardship and cultural grievances in shaping voter behavior, particularly among younger generations. Dr. Foa explores how disillusionment with mainstream politics can lead to either political apathy or support for more radical alternatives, including both left-wing and right-wing populist movements. At the same time, he argues that traditional political parties must adapt to these shifting dynamics by engaging in meaningful reform, rather than relying on outdated strategies to counteract the appeal of extremist factions.
While acknowledging the challenges posed by rising authoritarianism, Dr. Foa remains cautiously optimistic about the potential for democratic revival. He points to historical cycles of democratization, as well as recent public opinion shifts following events such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Trump presidency, as evidence that democratic values can reassert themselves in reaction to perceived threats. Ultimately, he warns against simplistic, one-size-fits-all solutions, emphasizing that each democracy faces unique structural and political challenges that require tailored approaches to renewal.
This interview provides a thought-provoking analysis of the current state of democracy and the pathways available for its restoration. It is an essential read for scholars, policymakers, and citizens alike who seek to understand the evolving nature of political power in the 21st century.
In a time of rising populism, Professor Eric Beinhocker explains how populist leaders capitalize on economic grievances and social distrust to fuel their movements. “When people feel the system is unfair and rigged, they seek someone to blame,” he says, pointing out how populists exploit feelings of broken social contracts to gain political traction. According to him, trade wars and economic nationalism further exacerbate global instability. “No country can make an iPhone alone,” Professor Beinhocker states, stressing that interconnected supply chains make protectionism self-destructive. Tariffs and trade barriers, he warns, will “lower living standards and harm American competitiveness” rather than protect workers. This insightful discussion unpacks the economic forces fueling populism and the fragility of global trade.
In an era of rising political polarization and populist movements across the globe, the erosion of trust in institutions has become a defining challenge for democracies. In an intriguing interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Eric Beinhocker, Executive Director of INET Oxford and Professor of Public Policy Practice at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, discusses how populist politicians leverage the breakdown of the social contract to fuel political movements. He introduces the concept of the “psychology of broken contracts” as a key factor in the rise of populism, arguing that when people perceive a fundamental violation of fairness, “some of our strongest emotions arise from fairness violations,” leading to anger, resentment, and a desire to strike back—a phenomenon that populist leaders exploit.
According to Professor Beinhocker, the modern economy has undergone major shifts since the 1970s, particularly in Western democracies, where working-class citizens and those outside major metropolitan centers increasingly feel “the system isn’t working for them—that it is unfair, rigged, and benefits others at their expense.” He argues that these perceived injustices—whether economic or political—create fertile ground for populist rhetoric, which provides “a clear enemy,” often framed as elites, immigrants, or individuals outside of one’s identity group. Populist politicians, he explains, thrive on these grievances, “preying on and exploiting the psychology of broken contracts to gain political traction.”
A crucial factor accelerating this process, Professor Beinhocker contends, is the role of social media. While he does not see it as the primary cause of populism, he acknowledges its role in intensifying moral outrage. “Social media algorithms quickly identify that the content generating the most engagement is that which triggers moral outrage,” he explains, reinforcing tribal identities and making “resetting these emotions incredibly difficult.” Populist leaders capitalize on this dynamic, using divisive narratives to deepen distrust in institutions and erode democratic norms.
To counteract these trends, Professor Beinhocker suggests that restoring trust requires rebuilding fairness and re-establishing a strong social contract. He argues that past leadership, such as Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, demonstrated how governments can “reset the social contract” through economic reforms, symbolic policies, and direct engagement with public concerns. However, he warns that “merely talking about trust is not enough—people need to experience fairness and institutional accountability.”
This interview provides a thought-provoking analysis of the intersection between economic shifts, political trust, and the psychology of populism, offering essential insights for scholars, policymakers, and citizens alike.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Professor Eric Beinhocker with some edits.
Trust Erodes When the Social Contract Is Broken
A fatigued factory worker experiencing exhaustion, weakness, hopelessness, and burnout. Photo: Shutterstock.
Professor Beinhocker, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: In your article “Trust, Populism and the Psychology of Broken Contracts,” you argue that over the last few years, there has been a worrying decline in faith by the citizens of many countries that institutions, including government and the media, are doing what is right. Can you explain the reasons why trust in institutions has eroded?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: I think a good starting point is that our relationships with key institutions like employers and governments are not just economic in terms of costs and benefits, as economists often think of them, but also emotional.
We can think of people as having a social contract with these institutions. I contribute work to my employer, follow their rules and norms, and, in exchange, I receive pay, along with other benefits such as status, social connections, and security. So, there is a two-way deal—a contract between people and institutions.
When people feel that this deal has been broken or violated in some way—what I call the psychology of broken contracts—they perceive fairness as being violated. Some of our strongest emotions arise from fairness violations. Psychologists have shown that this response is deeply biophysical—hormones flood the brain and body, triggering feelings of anger, resentment, and a sense of being taken advantage of. This emotional response can even override rational, thoughtful parts of the brain. Research also shows that people will sometimes strike back in ways that harm themselves, simply to restore a sense of fairness. There is an evolutionary explanation for this: enforcing norms of group cooperation is essential for social stability.
My interpretation of the rise of populism is that it stems from this reaction. Over the past few decades—beginning as far back as the 1970s in the US and parts of Europe—we have seen major changes to the social contract. People’s sense of what they contribute to society versus what they receive in return, particularly among working-class citizens and those with less education, has been disrupted. Many people outside of the large, prosperous cities feel that the system is not working for them—that it is unfair, rigged, and benefits others at their expense.
Often, these “others” are defined as people outside one’s identity group—those of different ethnic or religious backgrounds, immigrants, or elites in big cities with different cultural values. Populist politicians have exploited and preyed on this psychology, using it to fuel their narratives and gain political traction.
What is the relationship between the rise of populism and the lack of trust in institutions?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: When you feel that fairness has been violated, when you feel that the terms of the deal you had have been broken, you lose trust.This is very corrosive, both economically and politically, because our economic and political systems run on trust. They rely on the cooperation of millions of strangers—non-family members—working together in organizations and institutions.If we don’t have trust and that cooperation breaks down, our ability to function effectively is eroded, whether in economic or political spheres.
I argue in my work that at the core of restoring trust is the need to restore fairness and balance. People need to see and feel that they are getting a fair deal and that their expectations are being met. If we look back to Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Depression in the US, I think he understood this psychology very well. The New Deal was an explicit effort to reset the social contract, recalibrate people’s expectations, and, through concrete actions and lived experiences, rebuild trust.
You can’t rebuild trust just by talking about it—although language does play an important role—but rather through what people actually experience.
Fairness Violations Fuel Populism and Tribal Politics
Illustration by Ulker Design.
You argue that the ‘emotions of fairness violation’ may be playing a role in shaping politics and society today, which might be ‘the deeper and more universal explanation for the rise of populism,’ and add that highly emotional, seemingly irrational reactions have an underlying logic to them. Can you elaborate on this underlying logic?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: Well, first—and I’m sure you are studying this at the center—one striking thing about the rise of populism is how it has happened almost simultaneously across a number of quite different countries, economies, and even political systems. And even though the US and (Donald) Trump are getting a lot of attention today, this phenomenon has occurred in countries as diverse as India, Brazil, and Central European nations.
So, we have to ask: what are the more universal phenomena that might be driving this? This is where I come to an explanation at the intersection of economics, politics, and psychology, where changes in the economic and political environment have triggered these psychological reactions of fairness violation, which have then been easy prey for populist politicians.
Another universal phenomenon has been the change in the media landscape, particularly the rise of social media. While I don’t see it as a primary causal factor, it has clearly acted as an accelerant. When feelings of fairness violation occur, they trigger a form of moral outrage. Social media algorithms quickly identify that the content generating the most engagement is that which triggers moral outrage—it gets shared the most and garners the highest interaction, making it the most profitable. This creates a strong incentive for social media companies to fan the flames of these emotions.
Psychology research also shows that when people experience these emotions, it is very difficult to reset them. People literally stop listening when they are in this mode, and they tend to bond together tribally. If you feel wronged, or that someone has broken a deal with you, you become more powerful when you find others who feel the same way and work together to correct things.
To mitigate these responses and change the political landscape, political leaders first need to acknowledge these feelings and the realities behind them. In many center-left parties in the US and Europe, there has been a tendency to either tell people what is good for them or focus on issues that do not necessarily address their core concerns. Second, once these problems are acknowledged with empathy, leaders must credibly work on solutions to rebuild trust.
Populists Exploit Grievances to Deepen Identity-Based Divisions
Why do you think ‘identity-based tribalism’ and ‘inter-group conflict’ have increasingly gone up? Can you explain the link between the economic contract and the political contract and how the breakdown of these contracts plays into the hands of populists?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: As I mentioned, it’s a natural reaction. When people feel they are being treated unfairly by a system or that their trust has been violated, they look for people like them to team up with, strike back, avenge the harm, and try to reset the balance of the deal.
Social media has played an important role in helping people who feel this way find each other. The evidence I’ve seen suggests that many of the changes driving these feelings—such as shifts in employment, income levels, job security, and the role of the welfare state—have been affecting people for a long time. However, in the past, individuals may have felt these concerns in isolation. Someone might have worried about their job security, questioned whether their skills would remain relevant without a university education, or wondered whether their children would have opportunities in a declining area.
Previously, these concerns might have been personal and disconnected. But the internet has allowed people to find others experiencing the same anxieties, making them realize they are not alone. There is also a natural tendency to seek solidarity with those who share an identity group. For instance, white male working-class voters have been a prominent base of support for populists across multiple countries, as they have coalesced around shared grievances and a sense of being left behind. Populists have been highly skilled at linking these emotions with the need for identity and solidarity, capitalizing on the breakdown of both economic and political contracts.
You argue that when the social contract is broken, it is very hard to put the moral outrage genie back in the bottle, yet you give the example of the US as a successful case of containing social outrage. What should Europe do to combat the rise of far-right populism?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: I meant that the US historically, in the 1930s, was a successful case through Roosevelt and the New Deal. Whether it will be successful in putting the genie back in the bottle this time remains to be seen. Right now, the genie is very much out of the bottle in the US, and looking at all the results we’re seeing, the challenge is significant.
If we look at cases where social cohesion has been rebuilt, more research is needed because there have only been a few cases I’ve examined, and nothing systematic. However, what seems to happen is, first, leaders must express real empathy with the emotions involved—not deny them but acknowledge the real causes behind them and understand the people expressing them. Then, they need to outline a pragmatic path forward to restore fairness, rebuild the social contract, and address specific issues.
Sometimes, symbolic actions play a key role in demonstrating a commitment to recovery. For example, Roosevelt’s public works programs during the Great Depression, while large in scale, were not enough on their own to lift the country out of the depression. However, they had a huge symbolic impact in showing that Roosevelt and the government cared and were actively working to address these problems and restore people’s sense of mutual commitment with their government.
I think we need to think creatively about identifying the real underlying issues and what can practically be done to address them. However, the current environment presents a much greater challenge than Roosevelt’s time. The influence of social media has significantly eroded trust in basic ideas of truth and facts. That is a challenge we will need to figure out how to overcome.
The Clean Energy Transition Needs Global Cooperation and Capital
Aerial drone view of a hybrid solar and wind farm in Bannister, NSW, Australia, featuring large wind turbines in the background generating renewable clean energy on a sunny day. Photo: Steve Tritton.
Many clean energy transitions are happening in wealthier nations, while developing countries struggle with financing. What global financial mechanisms or cooperation strategies can ensure a just and inclusive transition? Are we on track for a sustainable and inclusive green transition?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: These are very important questions. A colleague and I at Oxford recently published a piece in The Wall Street Journalarguing that the clean energy transition now has significant momentum, and that the economics and technology behind it are very promising. Even if Trump is re-elected and takes an anti-clean energy stance, he is unlikely to stop the transition entirely—he might slow it down in the US, but at a global level, clean energy technologies will continue to grow.
Despite the fact that these energy sources are now cheaper than fossil fuels in many cases and are getting even cheaper as technology improves, they remain highly capital-intensive. Wealthier countries are increasingly finding ways to mobilize capital to make these investments and accelerate the transition.
However, as you point out, access to capital remains a major issue in developing countries. The shift to clean energy in many of these nations would be highly beneficial both economically and environmentally, yet the capital needed to make this transition is not being mobilized, even though these investments would be positive over time.
For a long time, the proposed solution has been global-level action through the UN process, development banks, and aid agencies. However, this has been a slow and cumbersome political process, and developing countries argue—rightfully so—that the promised capital flows have not materialized. Given the current environment of low global cooperation, particularly with the political situation in the US, I am not optimistic that this will improve significantly in the near term.
That said, perhaps a “coalition of the willing” among certain countries could take steps to improve the situation. The best answer, in my view, is to find ways to attract private capital to these countries and projects. Governments and multilateral organizations can play a crucial role in de-risking private capital flows, and there are various mechanisms to do this. My hope is that as the economics of clean energy technologies continue to improve, we can lower some of the barriers that currently prevent private capital from seeing the opportunities for clean energy investment in developing countries.
Trump’s Trade Policies Could Disrupt Global Supply Chains and Undermine Climate Cooperation
With Trump previously withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, how will his return to office impact global cooperation on initiatives like the Breakthrough Agenda? Will he further undermine international climate agreements?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: It’s clearly not good for international cooperation on climate. But my sense, from talking to folks in that field, is that we made it through the last Trump administration on these issues. While his return may slow things down and cause harm in some areas, we will make it through again.
The US is an important player in these forums, but it is certainly not the only one. Other countries will need to find ways to keep the momentum going. The good news is that the economic and technological trends behind clean energy provide some tailwinds to support those efforts.
Given Trump’s second-term policies, how would a renewed “America First” approach impact global trade and climate initiatives, particularly in relation to tariffs on China, withdrawal from international agreements like the Paris Accord, and protectionist policies? How might these trade policies affect efforts like the Breakthrough Agenda, which aims to drive down clean energy costs?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: There was a piece by Tom Friedman in The New York Timesseveral weeks ago where he interviewed me on Trump’s tariff plans. I think the part that hasn’t been discussed enough is that, of course, added tariffs increase costs and frictions on trade, reducing trade flows and raising costs for consumers—those are well-known effects. But what has been less appreciated in the analyses of the damage they will cause is just how interconnected global supply chains are.
It’s not like the old days, back in Adam Smith’s time, where one country makes wine, another makes cheese, and trade simply makes both better off. In the modern economy, I can’t even make the wine, and you can’t make the cheese without each other because so many inputs, machines, and supplies come from global supply chains. As I said in that article, no country on earth can make an iPhone alone. There’s probably no country that can make a modern jet aircraft, an automobile, or even many agricultural products without access to global supply chains.
Farmers today get their seeds from one country, fertilizer inputs from another, machinery from yet another, and so on. These trade wars and frictions may result in some restructuring of supply chains, but mostly, they will create difficulties in producing complex products, increase costs, and lower living standards for everyone. They will also severely hurt American competitiveness.
Trump believes that imposing these barriers will increase production in the US, but when you talk to the companies involved—like automakers—they will tell you they cannot operate in a country with these kinds of barriers. They rely on a global supply chain, and if they face trade restrictions, they will simply move production elsewhere to avoid these barriers. It seems quite unambiguous that these policies will be harmful—not just to the global economy, but significantly to US workers, consumers, and overall competitiveness.
Trump’s Tax Cuts Enriched the Wealthy While Exacerbating Inequality and Deficit
Demonstrators gather at the US Capitol on President’s Day to protest the actions of President Trump’s administration and billionaire Elon Musk in Washington, D.C., on February 17, 2025. Photo: Rena Schild.
Your work discusses the need to rethink economic welfare. How might Trump’s tax cuts for corporations and de-regulation affect economic resilience, especially for those most vulnerable to climate change? Could Trump’s fiscal and monetary policies worsen economic inequality and climate vulnerability?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: On the question of the Trump tax cuts, which they are looking to extend in this current congressional session, we actually now have several years of evidence on what the first Trump tax cuts did to the economy. The findings from those analyses are quite clear—they did very little to spur actual investment in productive assets.
The money that corporations received from those tax cuts largely went into stock buybacks, which inflated stock prices and enriched shareholders and CEOs, further exacerbating inequality while doing very little for average people.
Additionally, the tax cuts massively increased the deficit—likely the largest non-wartime increase in the US deficit in history, if I am remembering correctly. It was essentially a huge giveaway to the wealthiest, with minimal benefits for everyone else. Given that evidence, we would expect a renewal of those tax cuts to produce a similar outcome.
At the same time, while cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy, they are simultaneously slashing other parts of the government. As a result, Americans will see critical services they rely on—such as veterans’ services, healthcare, education, and infrastructure—deteriorate.
Some economists anticipate that the combination of these tax cuts, trade wars, and changes in fiscal policy could lead to a very problematic mix of inflationary pressures and economic stagnation for the US economy.
Global Economic Fragmentation Is the Most Likely Scenario for the Foreseeable Future
And lastly, Professor Beinhocker, trade tensions, economic nationalism, and supply chain disruptions have led to “de-globalization” discussions. Is globalization in decline, and what are the consequences? Do you see a permanent shift toward regional economic blocs, or will globalization find new forms?
Professor Eric Beinhocker: What I would like to see is a kind of smart globalization. I haven’t—I’ve been a critic of the 1980s and 1990s neoliberal model of globalization, which essentially threw open the doors and let the chips fall where they may. We have seen that this approach has produced very mixed results.
On the one hand, globalization has led to increased trade and investment worldwide, yielding many positive benefits, such as helping developing countries and lifting millions out of poverty, particularly in China and other parts of the world. On the other hand, it has also had negative impacts on workers in certain sectors and regions of the US, Europe, and elsewhere.
Moreover, we need to be realistic about the geopolitical and security risks associated with the type of globalization we have had. COVID-19 exposed the vulnerabilities of supply chains that rely too heavily on a single country or supplier. Additionally, geopolitical tensions present risks if, for example, the US is entirely dependent on critical technologies from certain countries.
I believe there is a middle ground between the neoliberal “throw open the doors” approach and the Trump-era strategy of raising trade barriers. We should seek the benefits of globalization and global supply chains while also being strategic about diversification and forming trade relationships with reliable partners.
Janet Yellen, Biden’s Treasury Secretary, gave an insightful speech on this topic, advocating for what she called “friend-shoring”—strengthening trade relationships with the US’s allies and partners. Additionally, trade policies should consider the interests of workers, environmental protections, and broader societal concerns, rather than solely prioritizing corporate profits.
There are smarter ways to approach trade, and the Biden administration was making steps in that direction. Unfortunately, that is not the trajectory we are currently on. In the near term, it seems inevitable that trade will become more fragmented into regional blocs.
I was just listening to a report on how China has responded to Trump’s tariffs by lowering trade barriers with a large group of developing countries, attempting to form its own trading bloc with nations across Asia and other regions. Unfortunately, this kind of economic fragmentation appears to be the most likely scenario for the foreseeable future.
Date/Time: Thursday, March 13, 2025 / 15:00-17:00 (CET)
Moderator
Dr. Cengiz Aktar(Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the University of Athens and ECPS Advisory Board Member).
Speakers
“How Worried Should We Be About the AfD and the Transatlantic Relationship?” by Dr. Eric Langenbacher (Teaching Professor and Director of the Senior Honors Program in the Department of Government, Georgetown University).
“How Can We Explain the Rise of the AfD in the 2025 Election?” by Dr. Kai Arzheimer(Professor of Political Science at the University of Mainz).
“Accommodation or Exclusion? Immigration, the AfD, and Democratic Challenges in the 2025 Election,” byDr. Hannah M. Alarian (Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida).
“The AfD’s Surge in the 2025 Germany Federal Election: Patterns of Realignment and Political Implications,” by Dr. Conrad Ziller (Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Duisburg-Essen).
“Germany’s Far Right: Antifeminism Sells,” by Dr. Sabine Volk (Postdoctoral Researcher at the Chair of Political Science and Comparative Politics, Faculty of Social and Educational Sciences, University of Passau).
Despite recognizing the difficulties brought by growing authoritarianism, Dr. Roberto S. Foa of Cambridge University maintains a measured optimism regarding the prospects for democratic renewal. He highlights historical patterns of democratization and shifts in public opinion—such as those triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Trump presidency—as indications that democratic principles can regain strength in response to perceived threats. However, he cautions against generalized solutions, stressing that each democracy grapples with distinct institutional and political hurdles that demand context-specific strategies for revitalization.
The resilience of democracy in the face of mounting global challenges has become one of the most pressing questions of our time. As populist leaders continue to gain traction, democratic norms erode, and authoritarian tendencies rise, many scholars and policymakers are left wondering whether these trends signal a long-term shift or a temporary setback in the cyclical evolution of governance. Dr. Roberto Stefan Foa, Assistant Professor in Politics and Public Policy at Cambridge University, has dedicated his research to understanding the dynamics of democratic deconsolidation and the conditions necessary for democratic renewal.
In this interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Foa provides a nuanced perspective on whether the recent wave of democratic backsliding—evident in both Western and emerging democracies—represents an irreversible decline or a phase within a broader historical pattern. He highlights the importance of distinguishing between informal and formal democratic norms, explaining how social media, populist rhetoric, and political polarization have eroded basic principles of civility and accountability. However, he also underscores the resilience of institutions, particularly in Western Europe, where robust political frameworks have mitigated some of the more extreme consequences of democratic decline.
A key theme in this conversation is the role of economic hardship and cultural grievances in shaping voter behavior, particularly among younger generations. Dr. Foa explores how disillusionment with mainstream politics can lead to either political apathy or support for more radical alternatives, including both left-wing and right-wing populist movements. At the same time, he argues that traditional political parties must adapt to these shifting dynamics by engaging in meaningful reform, rather than relying on outdated strategies to counteract the appeal of extremist factions.
While acknowledging the challenges posed by rising authoritarianism, Dr. Foa remains cautiously optimistic about the potential for democratic revival. He points to historical cycles of democratization, as well as recent public opinion shifts following events such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Trump presidency, as evidence that democratic values can reassert themselves in reaction to perceived threats. Ultimately, he warns against simplistic, one-size-fits-all solutions, emphasizing that each democracy faces unique structural and political challenges that require tailored approaches to renewal.
This interview provides a thought-provoking analysis of the current state of democracy and the pathways available for its restoration. It is an essential read for scholars, policymakers, and citizens alike who seek to understand the evolving nature of political power in the 21st century.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Dr. Roberto Stefan Foa with some edits.
From Democratic Apathy to Democratic Antipathy Among Youths
A group of multicultural, peaceful activists sit outside, holding hands and displaying posters in a demonstration against climate change. Photo: Shutterstock.
Professor Foa, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: In your research on democratic deconsolidation, you highlight a decline in public support for democracy in developed nations. Do you see this trend accelerating with the second Trump presidency and with the recent surge of far-right parties in Europe?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: No, not necessarily. I think, in some ways, what we’ve seen since Trump took office in January is that there has actually been a reaction in some countries, and that’s been quite clear. If you look, for example, at the polling of Poirier in Canada. Since then, if you look at the situation here in the UK, regarding Farage’s Reform Party and public support for them, I think you’ve actually seen, to some extent, an inoculating effect.
But whether that continues really depends a lot on the example that the Trump presidency sets—whether it gets mired in deeper and deeper difficulties on the economic side, in pushing forward its domestic reform agenda, in conflicts with the courts or the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., and in its difficulties to date in delivering on Trump’s promises of peace in the Middle East and in Ukraine. So, I think that’s still very much to be seen.
How do you explain the paradox where younger generations in some countries lean toward populist movements while in others they disengage from politics altogether?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: I don’t think there’s a paradox at all. In fact, I would describe it as a two-step process. In the first phase, in some countries, younger generations become disconnected or disillusioned with mainstream politics. This manifests in lower membership in traditional political parties, reduced electoral turnout, and declining interest in politics—what could be termed democratic apathy.
If this disengagement deepens, it can escalate into what might be called democratic antipathy. In such cases, younger generations—particularly young men in the United States and many parts of Continental Europe—become more inclined to support extremist parties, including populist movements on both the left and the right.
The Erosion of Informal Norms and the Failure of Traditional Parties
Given your research on public opinion and authoritarian resilience, how do you assess the impact of far-right leaders on democratic norms and political polarization in Europe and the US?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: Well, I think these are very different contexts. However, there is one common factor between Europe and the US in how democratic norms have shifted, and that is primarily on the informal side. When populist movements, whether from the left or the right, gain prominence, we often see challenges to basic norms—civility in debate, truthfulness in politics, and accountability for mistakes in political life. These informal norms have eroded in many countries.
In terms of more formal threats to democracy—such as respect for free and fair elections, acceptance of electoral outcomes, intimidation, declining electoral integrity, or the politicization of the judiciary, courts, and civil service—we see these issues more prominently in the US than in Europe, particularly Western Europe. There are specific reasons for this. The political institutions in many parts of Western Europe tend to be more robust, making them more resistant to such erosion.
Does the rise of populist leaders across Western Europe and North America signal a failure of traditional political parties in responding to economic and cultural grievances?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: I think it signifies a failure of traditional political parties in responding to voter demands and concerns. That is almost true by definition—whenever new political parties break through, whether they are populist or not, whether they are right-wing, left-wing, or centrist, it clearly signals some failure in the existing party system to deliver what voters are demanding.
Now, whether that is a result of economic and cultural grievances, I think there are many different factors at play. Clearly, in some countries and among certain constituencies, there have been unaddressed economic grievances. Similarly, there have been unaddressed cultural grievances, particularly in Europe regarding immigration. However, I do not think there is a generalized thesis that applies across all countries regarding the specific types of grievances at play.
The Erosion of Accountability in the Age of Social Media
How significant is the role of social media and digital platforms in fueling democratic deconsolidation, and are these platforms more influential than traditional media?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: Okay, I’ll take that one at a time. Yes, I think the rise of social media has had a significant effect, but I would say that its impact is largely limited to the informal norms of democratic life and competition.
It used to be the case that strong media gatekeepers held politicians accountable. If a politician was caught in a corruption scandal or, like Trump, taken to court and found guilty of an offense, there was no way around it. The only option was to acknowledge the fault, take responsibility, resign if necessary, and move on.
In the social media environment we live in now, however, that is no longer the optimal strategy. Trump’s approach to politics is a great example of this. It has become much more effective to double down, continue denying accusations, and keep shifting the conversation from one topic to another—something Trump is particularly skilled at doing on social media. And, of course, Trump is not the only example. Many populist politicians have adopted similar strategies on social media, which has eroded some informal democratic norms, particularly around truthfulness, civility, and responsibility in public life.
However, I do not believe social media is to blame for democratic deconsolidation in terms of the erosion of formal institutions. When we see threats to judicial independence or harassment of civil society activists, I do not attribute that to social media. That is a separate issue and something that does not occur in every country.
A Cycle of Democratic Erosion with No Clear Limits
Your research on America’s shift from “clean” to “dirty” democracy suggests a weakening of democratic norms. How would a second Trump term impact democratic institutions in the US and beyond?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: I think in the US, it’s clear—we are already seeing these trends unfold. As you referenced, my article was about understanding these developments as part of a longer-term process. The United States has been on this trajectory for more than a generation, where both Republicans and, in some cases, Democrats have attempted to change the rules of the game to gain partisan advantage. This includes the breakdown of bipartisan consensus over the political neutrality of Supreme Court appointments and the excessive politicization of the judiciary and civil service.
This shift has contributed to increased polarization, which in turn fuels the next cycle of democratic erosion. If you look at the current Trump presidency, it is evident that there are virtually no limits to what Trump is prepared to do. His administration has been planning for quite some time—through initiatives like Project 2025—to implement sweeping changes. This includes placing pressure on senior civil servants and, in many cases, firing those who are perceived as bureaucratic obstacles within the federal government. Many of these individuals were seen as sources of resistance during Trump’s first term when they attempted to uphold institutional norms.
This process is clearly already in motion, and it will undoubtedly continue at least until the midterms. Even if Republicans do not win the midterms, Trump will still control the executive branch, meaning these trends will likely persist beyond that point.
Outside the US, I do not see this process occurring in exactly the same way. Every country has its own unique political dynamics. For example, in Israel, there have been intense debates over attempts to curtail judicial independence. While democratic backsliding is a concern in multiple contexts, the US remains the primary focus and the number one concern right now.
Europe May Step Up as the US Steps Back
EU flags in EU Council building during the EU Summit in Brussels, Belgium on June 28, 2018. Photo: Alexandros Michailidis.
How will second Trump presidency affect international organizations like NATO, the EU, and the UN, which traditionally promote democratic norms?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: I actually don’t think the effect will be as large as people currently believe or fear it may be. The major impact will be on the United States’ direct influence, which is quite clear—for example, eliminating USAID, canceling democracy promotion programs, and withdrawing US support for liberal internationalism.
However, I don’t believe that an organization like the European Union will be negatively affected in its own capacity to promote democracy. If anything, the opposite is more likely—there will probably be an increase in European solidarity and a greater effort by the EU to take on some of the programs that the US discards. We can already see this in direct support for Ukraine, provided both by European countries and the United Kingdom, including military aid. If US support declines, European countries may be required to increase their contributions in the coming year to compensate.
On the international level, I don’t think Trump’s presidency will have as significant an influence as some fear. The United Nations, however, is a different case. If the Trump administration truly follows through on pulling US funding for the UN, that would present a major problem, given that the US is one of its largest financial contributors. This could create a substantial funding gap. However, what we have seen so far is a trend where other Western democracies step up to fill the void.
Far-Right Unity Is More Myth Than Reality
Given Trump’s anti-globalist stance, what impact do you expect on global democratic solidarity movements or efforts to counter authoritarianism?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: I think that will vary depending on the region. Within Europe, where democratic values are already well embedded and the public strongly supports international democratic solidarity, I see less of a threat. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, in Europe, the reaction has largely been to step up and fill the gaps left by the US.
However, in emerging democracies, the situation is quite different. The United States has historically provided significant bilateral support to civil society movements and political actors working to protect and advance democratic norms in many parts of the Global South. In these regions, the withdrawal of US support poses a much greater threat to democratic consolidation and resilience.
But we see a broader alignment between right-wing populist leaders globally, where Trump serves as a rallying figure for European far-right movements?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: No, no. I think this is something that is frequently misunderstood. When conducting comparative analysis across countries or examining international relations, terms like “populism” and “far-right” need to be unpacked, as they encompass a wide range of movements with differing interests that do not always align—nor do they necessarily align with Donald Trump’s agenda in the United States.
For example, within Europe, since Trump’s election, we see leaders like Giorgia Meloni in Italy largely adhering to the European line. This was already the case under Biden, particularly regarding her policy on Ukraine. Even though she personally has connections with figures like Elon Musk and Trump, she has had to navigate Italy’s commitments carefully, including apologizing for the country’s potential withdrawal from certain international agreements.
So, I would not assume there is an automatic far-right international unity. These movements are often driven more by national interests and political differences within their respective countries, making them quite disparate.
Economic Struggles Are Reshaping Youth Political Behavior
Prices of fruit and vegetables in stores: A woman holds euro banknotes against the backdrop of a vegetable stand at a local market. Photo: Andrzej Rostek.
In your study on youth and populism, you argue that economic hardship fuels support for radical movements. Given the cost-of-living crisis in Europe, do you anticipate a further shift of young voters toward far-right parties?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: I think there could be a further shift. It may not necessarily be driven solely by the cost-of-living crisis, but economic factors certainly play a role. For younger generations right now, there is already evidence of economic struggles, particularly in the job market.
With automation and the replacement of jobs through AI, we are already seeing—and will continue to see—these challenges affecting younger generations as they try to establish themselves, pay off debts, secure employment, find housing, and move forward in life.
It is very clear that in countries where these challenges have been acute for a long period—such as France, Greece, and Italy—disillusionment among younger generations began much earlier, 20 to 30 years ago. I would anticipate that similar trends will continue in the US and the UK, where, until now, economic conditions for younger generations had not been seen as quite so dire.
How does the rise of nationalist-populist parties in Europe (e.g., AfD in Germany, Rassemblement National in France) affect the future of the EU and democratic cooperation?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: Again, I would say it really depends on the party. When looking at far-right parties, I always distinguish between different factions. You have the ultra-conservative far right, which in the European Parliament is represented by the ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists) faction. This includes parties like the Conservative Party in the UK and Law and Justice (PiS) in Poland. These parties are actually quite pro-Western in their outlook, certainly very Atlanticist in their foreign policy platform. Their fundamental beliefs and views are a continuation of Cold War-era conservatism, structured around social conservatism, tradition, and national sovereignty. Ultimately, they may pose less of a threat to Western solidarity.
The far-right faction I see as most damaging is what I would call the mercantilist populist right. Trump is a prime example of this, as is Orbán in Hungary, and Erdogan in Turkey has increasingly adopted this approach in his international engagements. These leaders view the world through a purely mercantilist lens, focusing on national self-interest and short-term leverage—whether in trade, aid, or diplomatic concessions. As a result, they are quite willing to undermine EU solidarity, Western alliances, or NATO commitments for immediate political or economic gains. This is something we frequently see with Orbán, who consistently seeks to extract concessions at EU summits.
That said, I would not categorize either Rassemblement National (RN) in France or Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany within this mercantilist populist category.
Centrist Politicians Can Learn from Populist Challengers
In your view, what strategies should centrist parties adopt to counteract the far-right’s rise, particularly in countries with increasing voter disillusionment?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: It really depends on the country. In cases where there are proportional representation systems and coalition politics, the far right can sometimes be defused by including them as a minor party within a coalition. I know that this is a controversial stance, as many people support the idea of a cordon sanitaire and believe that far-right parties should never be given even a single ministry in government. However, this approach has been used in Denmark and Austria over time, and in some cases, the experience of governing has actually weakened these parties. A taste of power often delegitimizes them—holding office makes them accountable for scandals, forces them to take responsibility for government actions, and compels them to moderate their positions to remain in the coalition. As a result, they must justify more centrist policies to their voters.
However, this strategy only works in political systems with proportional representation and coalition politics. It is a different situation in presidential systems like the United States or France, or majoritarian systems like the UK,where a far-right party could potentially gain majority power with only a minority of the vote. In these cases, centrist parties must focus on winning elections outright rather than attempting to contain the far right within coalitions.
Looking at successful cases, Macron in France provides an interesting example. He understood the collapse in support for the Socialist Party and recognized that he could position himself as an anti-establishment challenger from the center. By creating a new party and engaging in what was not quite a populist style but certainly a highly personalist political approach, he successfully revived the center and has remained in power for two terms so far. This suggests that centrist politicians can learn from populist challengers, particularly in terms of adopting new styles of political engagement.
No Permanent Shift Toward Illiberalism
Does the rise of authoritarianism in countries like Hungary and other Central European countries indicate a long-term shift, or do you see the possibility of democratic revival?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: Yes, there is always the possibility of a democratic revival. When discussing democratic backsliding, especially in a global context, there is often a pessimistic view that this decline started around 2005 or 2006—depending on the measure used, such as Freedom House rankings—and has only worsened over time. However, these processes tend to be cyclical. I have long believed that another democratic wave or a restoration of belief in liberal democratic values is possible at some point.
In fact, we have already seen some evidence of this. Earlier in our conversation, we discussed the Trump effect—how witnessing democratic erosion in the United States has led citizens in other countries to reconsider similar political trajectories. Similarly, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, public opinion data showed what could be described as a rally for democracy effect. Across Western countries, there was an increase in support for NATO, Western solidarity, and even liberal democracy—not a dramatic shift, but a noticeable one, particularly on the left. So, I absolutely believe that democratic revival remains a possibility.
Are we witnessing a permanent shift toward illiberal governance, or do you see democracy rebounding in the long run?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: I certainly don’t think there is ever a permanent shift in politics. Politics is not kind to those who predict permanent shifts of any kind. I do believe there is a cyclical nature to these trends. Democratization has historically occurred in waves, and we could see another wave at some point—that is always a possibility. Perhaps that is even the lesson of history in some broader sense. So no, I absolutely do not see any kind of permanent shift toward illiberalism. There is always a contest.
No One-Size-Fits-All Solution to Strengthening Democracy
And lastly, Professor Foa, if you could advise policymakers on one crucial reform to strengthen democracy, what would it be?
Dr. Roberto S. Foa: You know, Tolstoy famously said that “all happy families are alike, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” I think the same is true for democracies. Stable democracies—like Iceland, Switzerland, or Norway—tend to share similar characteristics. However, failing democracies each have their own unique problems.
These challenges vary: in some cases, the most urgent need might be electoral reform; in others, it could be campaign finance reform—particularly in the United States, where the to-do list is quite long. In some situations, strengthening the independence of the judiciary and civil service or ending clientelism is crucial. So, while every democracy has its own set of necessary reforms, I wouldn’t say there is a one-size-fits-all solution.
In a thought-provoking interview with the ECPS, Professor Stephen E. Hanson unpacks how US President Donald Trump exemplifies a growing global trend of patrimonial rule. Professor Hanson argues that Trump governs as if the state was his personal property—distributing power to loyalists, undermining impartial governance, and attacking state institutions. Drawing comparisons to Russia, Hungary, and Brazil, he warns of long-term damage to democratic institutions. Professor Hanson stresses the need for renewed public trust in government and a collective effort to counteract the erosion of modern governance.
In an in-depth interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Stephen E. Hanson, the Lettie Pate Evans Professor in the Department of Government at William & Mary University, offers a compelling analysis of the erosion of modern governance under US President Donald Trump. Drawing on his co-authored works The Global Patrimonial Waveand The Assault on the State, Professor Hanson argues that Trump’s presidency exemplifies a broader 21st-century resurgence of patrimonial rule—a system in which leaders govern as if the state were their personal property.
Professor Hanson underscores that “the key features [of Trump’s governance] are that the ruler governs the entire state as if it were his personal possession, viewing the state as a kind of family business. He distributes parts of the state and its protection to loyalists, cronies, and even family members directly. At the same time, he attacks the impersonal and impartial administration of the state as an obstacle to his arbitrary power.” This, he argues, is a defining characteristic of patrimonialism, a governance style that many assumed had been relegated to history but is now re-emerging in modern democracies.
Through the course of the interview, Professor Hanson details how Trump’s administration actively worked to dismantle bureaucratic institutions, a trend he links to similar developments in Russia, Hungary, Turkey and Brazil. He explains that Trump’s refusal to accept the 2020 election results—mirroring tactics used by patrimonial rulers—posed unprecedented risks to American democracy, undermining public trust in institutions like the electoral system and the judiciary.
Professor Hanson also addresses the long-term consequences of Trump’s governance, particularly in how it has fueled distrust in expertise and weakened state capacity. He describes how, under Trump, public service was increasingly devalued, discouraging young professionals from pursuing government careers. “At this moment, no one in their right mind would join the federal government—massive layoffs are happening, and every office is being downsized,” he warns, emphasizing that rebuilding state institutions will be a daunting, long-term challenge.
Yet, Professor Hanson remains hopeful, advocating for a reassertion of the state as a force for public good. He stresses the need for new strategies to counteract patrimonialism, urging scholars, policymakers, and civil society to shift the discourse toward defending democratic governance. His insights offer a sobering but essential perspective on the ongoing assault on the modern state—and what can be done to reverse it.
Dr. Cengiz Aktar(Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the University of Athens and ECPS Advisory Board Member).
Speakers
“How Worried Should We Be About the AfD and the Transatlantic Relationship?” by Dr. Eric Langenbacher (Teaching Professor and Director of the Senior Honors Program in the Department of Government, Georgetown University).
“How Can We Explain the Rise of the AfD in the 2025 Election?” by Dr. Kai Arzheimer(Professor of Political Science at the University of Mainz).
“Accommodation or Exclusion? Immigration, the AfD, and Democratic Challenges in the 2025 Election,” byDr. Hannah M. Alarian (Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida).
“The AfD’s Surge in the 2025 Germany Federal Election: Patterns of Realignment and Political Implications,” by Dr. Conrad Ziller (Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Duisburg-Essen).
“Germany’s Far Right: Antifeminism Sells,” by Dr. Sabine Volk (Postdoctoral Researcher at the Chair of Political Science and Comparative Politics, Faculty of Social and Educational Sciences, University of Passau).
Dr. Cengiz Aktar is an adjunct professor of political science at the University of Athens. He is a former director at the United Nations specializing in asylum policies. He is known to be one of the leading advocates of Turkey’s integration into the EU. He was the Chair of European Studies at Bahçeşehir University-Istanbul. In addition to EU integration policies, Dr. Aktar’s research focuses on the politics of memory regarding ethnic and religious minorities, the history of political centralism, and international refugee law.
How Worried Should We Be About the AfD and the Transatlantic Relationship?
Dr. Eric Langenbacher is a Teaching Professor and Director of Honors and Special Programs in the Department of Government, Georgetown University. His research interests center on political culture, collective memory, political institutions, public opinion and German and European politics. His publications include From the Bonn to the Berlin Republic: Germany at the Twentieth Anniversary of Unification (co-edited with Jeffrey J. Anderson, 2010), Dynamics of Memory and Identity in Contemporary Europe (co-edited with Ruth Wittlinger and Bill Niven, 2013), The German Polity, 10th, and 11th, 12th edition” (2013, 2017, 2021) (co-authored with David Conradt), The Merkel Republic: The 2013 Bundestag Election and its Consequences (2015), and Twilight of the Merkel Era: Power and Politics in Germany after the 2017 Bundestag Election (2019). He is also Managing Editor of German Politics and Society, which is housed in Georgetown’s BMW Center for German and European Studies.
How Can We Explain the Rise of the AfD in the 2025 Election?
Dr. Kai Arzheimer is a Professor of German Politics and Political Sociology at the University of Mainz in Germany. He is particularly interested in European far right parties and their voters.
Abstract: Within just three years, Germany’s Far Right “Alternative for Germany” has managed to double the 2021 result, making them the second largest party in the new parliament. During this period, the party has undergone a bewildering transformation that involved (further) radicalization on the one hand and normalization on the other. In my presentation, I trace this process and will also use (very preliminary) survey data to look into the micro-foundations of the AfD’s meteoric rise.
Accommodation or Exclusion? Immigration, the AfD, and Democratic Challenges in the 2025 Election
Dr. Hannah Alarian is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida, where she is also a faculty affiliate with the Center for Arts, Migration, and Entrepreneurship and the Center for European Studies. Dr. Alarian’s research examines questions of immigration, citizenship, and far-right politics in Europe and the United States. Her research appears in the American Political Science Review, the Journal of Politics, and Comparative Political Studies, among others.
Abstract:The 2025 German Federal Election marked a seismic political shift. Voter turnout soared to its highest since reunification, the far-right AfD secured 20.8%, becoming the second-largest party in the Bundestag, and the FDP lost all parliamentary representation for only the second time in history. How did Germany reach this moment of far-right ascendence, and what lies ahead? This presentation addresses these pressing questions, examining the democratic challenges posed by AfD. In particular, I examine the expected driver of far-right support (i.e., immigration) and party strategies regarding accommodation or exclusion of the AfD in parliament (i.e., breaching the Brandmauer). I conclude by discussing the democratic challenges facing the next German government and strategies the coalition may employ to stave off further far-right mobilization.
The AfD’s Surge in the 2025 Germany Federal Election: Patterns of Realignment and Political Implications
Dr. Conrad Ziller is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at University of Duisburg-Essen. His research interests focus on the role of immigration in politics and society, the radical right, and policy effects on citizens, amongst others. More information can be found here: https://conradziller.com/
Outlines: In the 2025 German federal election, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) achieved a historic 20.8% of the vote, doubling its previous performance and marking its strongest postwar result. This surge was particularly pronounced in economically disadvantaged regions, especially in the former East Germany, where the AfD secured up to 46% of votes in certain districts. Notably, the party made significant inroads in traditional Social Democratic Party (SPD) strongholds, such as Gelsenkirchen in North Rhine-Westphalia, a constituency long dominated by the SPD. Additionally, the AfD has gained popularity among young men and even attracted votes from immigrant communities, indicating a substantial realignment of voter bases. The implications for German politics over the next four years are profound. With a stronger parliamentary presence, the AfD’s will continue to challenge the traditional party system and influence debates on immigration, economic reform, and Germany’s role in the European Union. While mainstream parties have ruled out coalitions with the AfD, their electoral losses highlight growing societal divisions. Addressing the economic and cultural divisions fueling the AfD’s rise will be crucial for maintaining political stability and democratic cohesion.
Germany’s Far Right: Antifeminism Sells
Dr. Sabine Volk is a postdoctoral researcher at the Chair of Political Science and Comparative Politics, Faculty of Social and Educational Sciences, University of Passau. She is affiliated with the Hub on Emotions, Populism and Polarisation, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki. Her research appears in European Societies, European Politics and Society, Frontiers in Political Science, German Politics, Political Research Exchange and Social Movement Studies, as well as in edited volumes. Her research interests include populism and the far right, party politics and social movements in Germany and Europe.
Abstract: The issue of immigration surely dominated the German federal election campaign. Mainstream parties adopted an increasingly harsh anti-immigration discourse under the impression of AfD’s increasing strength in the polls. This presentation shifts our attention to yet another important issue of far-right politics in Germany and beyond: antifeminism or ‘antigenderism’. Addressing the puzzle of AfD’s lesbian leader Alice Weidel, it examines how AfD successfully fashions itself as Germany’s key antifeminist actor. Among other things, it traces AfD’s radicalization in the issue areas of women’s reproductive rights as well as trans and gender diverse minority rights.
In a thought-provoking interview with the ECPS, Professor Stephen E. Hanson unpacks how US President Donald Trump exemplifies a growing global trend of patrimonial rule. Professor Hanson argues that Trump governs as if the state was his personal property—distributing power to loyalists, undermining impartial governance, and attacking state institutions. Drawing comparisons to Russia, Hungary, and Brazil, he warns of long-term damage to democratic institutions. Professor Hanson stresses the need for renewed public trust in government and a collective effort to counteract the erosion of modern governance.
In an in-depth interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Stephen E. Hanson, the Lettie Pate Evans Professor in the Department of Government at William & Mary University, offers a compelling analysis of the erosion of modern governance under US President Donald Trump. Drawing on his co-authored works The Global Patrimonial Waveand The Assault on the State, Professor Hanson argues that Trump’s presidency exemplifies a broader 21st-century resurgence of patrimonial rule—a system in which leaders govern as if the state were their personal property.
Professor Hanson underscores that “the key features [of Trump’s governance] are that the ruler governs the entire state as if it were his personal possession, viewing the state as a kind of family business. He distributes parts of the state and its protection to loyalists, cronies, and even family members directly. At the same time, he attacks the impersonal and impartial administration of the state as an obstacle to his arbitrary power.” This, he argues, is a defining characteristic of patrimonialism, a governance style that many assumed had been relegated to history but is now re-emerging in modern democracies.
Through the course of the interview, Professor Hanson details how Trump’s administration actively worked to dismantle bureaucratic institutions, a trend he links to similar developments in Russia, Hungary, Turkey and Brazil. He explains that Trump’s refusal to accept the 2020 election results—mirroring tactics used by patrimonial rulers—posed unprecedented risks to American democracy, undermining public trust in institutions like the electoral system and the judiciary.
Professor Hanson also addresses the long-term consequences of Trump’s governance, particularly in how it has fueled distrust in expertise and weakened state capacity. He describes how, under Trump, public service was increasingly devalued, discouraging young professionals from pursuing government careers. “At this moment, no one in their right mind would join the federal government—massive layoffs are happening, and every office is being downsized,” he warns, emphasizing that rebuilding state institutions will be a daunting, long-term challenge.
Yet, Professor Hanson remains hopeful, advocating for a reassertion of the state as a force for public good. He stresses the need for new strategies to counteract patrimonialism, urging scholars, policymakers, and civil society to shift the discourse toward defending democratic governance. His insights offer a sobering but essential perspective on the ongoing assault on the modern state—and what can be done to reverse it.
Here is the transcription of the interview with Professor Stephen E. Hanson with some edits.
How Trump’s Governance Undermined the Modern State
US President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing after a Black Hawk helicopter collided with American Airlines Flight 5342 near DCA Airport in Washington on January 30, 2025. Photo: Joshua Sukoff.
Professor Hanson, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: In “Understanding the Global Patrimonial Wave,” you discuss the resurgence of patrimonial rule. How does Trump’s presidency fit into this framework, and what long-term effects might his style of governance have on American democracy?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: Thanks for this question. I want to begin by acknowledging my co-author, Jeffrey Kopstein, who, of course, can’t join us for this interview, but everything we’ve done together is a completely equal collaboration. So I always begin by acknowledging his great work.
We do think, sadly, that our predictions in The Global Patrimonial Wave and The Assault on the State, the book we’ve just published, have unfortunately come true. The Trump administration, in its early weeks, has fulfilled these predictions practically, and we believe that our warning was, unfortunately, quite prescient.
Now, what did we see coming down the road? We argued that this new version of patrimonial rule is really a wave of the entire 21st century and quite unexpected. The old literature on patrimonialism—or neopatrimonialism, as it was often called—assumed it was a relic of traditional society destined to be overthrown by modernity. You might see periods of patrimonial interludes, particularly in the developing world, but nobody had predicted patrimonialism of the 19th-century sort, or even earlier, in countries like the US, Israel, the UK, much of Central and Eastern Europe, and now threatening the world.
So, we’ll discuss more details about the Trump administration in this interview, but the key features are that the ruler governs the entire state as if it were his personal possession, viewing the state as a kind of family business. He distributes parts of the state and its protection to loyalists, cronies, and even family members directly. At the same time, he attacks the impersonal and impartial administration of the state as an obstacle to his arbitrary power.
All of this comes directly from Max Weber, and in a way, we are simply applying Weber’s analysis to these unexpected 21st-century cases.
You highlight how strong bureaucratic institutions played a key role in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. How did the Trump administration’s approach to governance impact the US response to the crisis, and do you see lasting damage to state capacity?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: We discuss this extensively in both the book and the article. What we argue is that patrimonial-style politics is fundamentally ill-suited for handling global pandemics. The first casualty of patrimonialism is the public good because governance is not about serving the public—it’s about fulfilling the private will of the ruler.
As a result, we see poor performances in countries governed by patrimonial rulers. If we compare data statistically, countries like Russia under Putin and the US under Trump performed very poorly. Patrimonial states tend to foster both distrust in the government—which discourages people from getting vaccinated or trusting experts—and the arbitrariness of the ruler himself. Trump’s public appearances, for example, where he seemingly endorsed sunlight as a cure for COVID-19 or suggested injecting bleach in front of his expert advisors, contributed to the excess death toll in the US compared to countries like Canada, which handled the crisis much more effectively.
Now, there are instances where patrimonial-style rulers managed certain aspects of the pandemic well. For example, Operation Warp Speed under Trump led to the rapid development of the vaccine, and Netanyahu’s vaccination campaigns in Israel were quite effective. However, we argue that these successes were not the result of patrimonial rule itself but rather the legacy of state-building efforts that predated these leaders. They were able to deploy existing state capacity, experts, and institutions in response to the crisis. But, of course, if the state is eroded too much over time, those resources will no longer be available in the future.
Rethinking Regimes: Why the Democracy-Autocracy Divide Is Not Adequate
Elon Musk speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center on February 20, 2025, in Oxon Hill, Maryland. Photo: Andrew Harnik.
Your work discusses the global trend of leaders undermining bureaucratic institutions. How does Trump’s presidency exemplify this, and what challenges does this pose for future administrations attempting to restore trust in expertise?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: The book is called The Assault on the State, and I think one reason it’s now getting some attention is that the title encapsulates what we expected to happen under Trump. Maybe even we were surprised by the extent of the assault on the state. It’s not just an attack on the so-called “deep state” as a rhetorical device—it’s an actual effort to dismantle the entirety of the US federal government. With DOGE, the agency essentially created out of the blue and directed by Elon Musk in all but name, they are now going into every single state agency in the United States. They have very young people, between the ages of 18 and 25, embedded in agencies, looking at files, personnel issues, and money flows.
While there has been some effort lately to cut that back—largely due to the anger of Trump’s Cabinet ministers—it is still in place. The long-term damage to state capacity is incalculable.
So all of this fits within our framework, but in an extreme form. I’ll add one thing that might actually be a bit surprising—and perhaps even, in a strange way, good for those of us who want to restore the state. This is happening so quickly that the damaging effects will become apparent sooner rather than later. If that happens, maybe public opposition can also be mobilized more quickly.
You argue that traditional democracy/autocracy classifications are insufficient. Given Trump’s attempts to subvert democratic norms, where would you place his presidency within your broader conceptual framework?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: One of the arguments in the book that has actually been a little bit controversial—and difficult to convey to people—is that we really don’t think the democracy-autocracy divide is adequate to understand this phenomenon. It’s ingrained in how we think about political regimes; it’s the standard framework used by political scientists, social scientists, and journalists alike.
When we talk about regime types in political science, people assume it’s a scale measured by V-Dem (Varieties of Democracy), Polity, or Freedom House. In each case, there’s a line ranging from positive—representing the most democratic—to negative—representing the most autocratic.
One reason we failed to recognize the rise of patrimonialism earlier is that it doesn’t fit into this framework. A patrimonial-style ruler can win free and fair elections repeatedly. In some cases, they even thrive in electoral competition. Trump is a great example of this, as is Boris Johnson. These leaders leverage populist tropes, portray machismo, and rail against the so-called “deep state” bureaucracy or, in the case of Europe, anti-EU politicians in Brussels. This rhetoric has a strong popular appeal, allowing them to win elections handily.
When they do, it becomes difficult to argue that they are anti-democratic, given that they just won an election. So, we argue that the axis needs to change. Our analysis must shift to a second dimension: impersonal versus personalized state governance. This concept is rooted in Weberian sociology.
If this is an independent axis, it implies that there are four regime types, not just two. You can have bureaucratically rational democracies—Denmark or Canada come to mind. You can also have personalized democracies, which are patrimonial—this is the US under Trump. Similarly, you can have personalized autocracies, which are quite common, and bureaucratic autocracies, like Singapore or the 19th-century Prussian Rechtsstaat model.
If this two-by-two framework holds, then we need to recognize that patrimonialism can exist within democratic systems without immediately eroding their democratic nature. In cases like the Philippines, voters essentially choose which patrimonial clan will rule—whether it’s Duterte’s or the Marcos family’s—but the patrimonial style remains constant. These hybrid forms of governance challenge our traditional political science classifications, requiring us to rethink how we analyze regime types.
The Legacy of Trump’s Election Denial
Jake Angeli or QAnon Shaman was among those who participated in the riots initiated by former US President Donald Trump at the Capitol, Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021. Photo: Johnny Silvercloud
Trump’s refusal to accept the 2020 election results mirrors tactics used by patrimonial rulers. How does this compare to other historical or global cases, and what risks does it pose for future US elections?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: Well, connecting to what we just talked about, the January 6th events and Trump’s unwillingness to admit defeat are somewhat unusual in these cases. The reason for that is that, typically, you either have a clear-cut electoral victory—like Orbán in Hungary, where he wins elections that propel him to absolute power, securing a parliamentary supermajority that allows him to amend the constitution over time—or you have leaders who reluctantly step aside without outright denying their defeat. In Orbán’s case, the space for democratic competition clearly erodes, but it happens through legal mechanisms. He doesn’t need to claim the election was fake because, in fact, he won.
There may be some elements of this with Boris Johnson’s departure, where he was reluctant to step down and continued to complain that his downfall was somehow orchestrated by others. However, he never actually claimed he deserved to be the permanent ruler, and, of course, he exited through parliamentary means rather than an election dispute.
In this respect, Trump’s insistence that he never lost the election, that it was all rigged, and that the so-called “deep state” blocked his victory is somewhat unusual in the annals of these regime types. However, it has played a significant role in further undermining trust in US state institutions—particularly in voting systems, ballot counting, and electronic voting machines.
This poses a serious issue going forward. While, as I mentioned earlier, you can have a patrimonial democracy that remains competitive, it does erode the quality of democracy over time. If the public becomes convinced that the ballot box is rigged and that votes are fake, then eventually, supporters can be persuaded that their candidate won even when they actually lost. This, of course, can lead to even worse regime outcomes.
Western Democracy in Crisis
Your research connects US political shifts to broader global patterns. Does Trump’s rise signal a deeper systemic failure in Western democracies, and how can the US counteract these trends moving forward?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: It’s definitely a bad situation. And we should add—Jeff and I are definitely in favor of democracy. Sometimes we get asked this question: “You’re so concerned about the State. Would you rather have a Reichstadt with no democracy than a democracy that’s patrimonial in some ways?” And the answer to that question is that we don’t have to make that choice.
The reality right now is that there’s no Reichstadt or a Singapore-style uncorrupted autocracy on offer. The only options available are populism in a democratic context and patrimonialism in the state context versus the old forms of liberal, rational-legal order, to use Weber’s terminology.
So part of our goal is to reclaim the State as a positive entity. We’ve seen it is bashed for so long from both the left and the right. Libertarians argue that the State is a block to liberty. On the left, critics see the military-industrial complex and the surveillance state as suppressing the people’s will. Religious nationalists believe the State is too secular and is stamping out religious life—and this isn’t just in the US but also in places like Russia. It’s different religious traditionalisms, but with the same kind of complaint.
The idea that the secular modern state is a good thing, that it helps protect the public welfare, is often missing from our political discourse. When you defend the State, you sound like you’re upholding an old, discredited status quo. But we should recognize that it’s not actually the status quo—that’s the whole problem.
This also connects to another issue. We are definitely in the camp that says neoliberalism has a lot to answer for over the last 30 years. The notion that the State should be reconstructed solely in service of markets, that it should be downsized as much as possible to become more efficient, or that the old welfare state was bloated and ineffective—those arguments, we believe, did significant damage. The financial crises of 2008 and then 2010–11 convinced many that the so-called meritocrats were not meritocratic, that the experts weren’t actually experts, that they didn’t know what they were doing, and that they didn’t care about ordinary people.
So now the task is to clarify that what failed was not the welfare state, nor the old establishment—it was a new group who came in, believing the establishment was inefficient and trying to dismantle the State. In some ways, returning to the State as a source and defender of public goods does not take us back to neoliberalism. It takes us further back—to the idea that the people can own the State, that the State can be democratic, and, ironically, that it can be truly republican in the sense of being a public institution that ordinary citizens own and connect to.
The Breaking of the Bureaucratic State: Can US Institutions Recover?
In ‘The Assault on the State,’ you argue that modern government is under attack. How does Trump’s presidency exemplify this trend, particularly regarding the erosion of democratic institutions and bureaucratic expertise?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: What’s happening in my country right now is painful to watch, especially for those of us closely connected to the production of expertise. I’m a university professor, and many of our students and graduate students go on to work in the federal government.
They do things like work on climate change, secure military bases against flooding, prepare for future pandemics, and test new vaccines. Even before the Trump administration, it was sometimes difficult to convince young people to join public service. Many would say, I can make more money in the private sector, or the public sector is too slow, too bureaucratic. But despite these concerns, we still managed to attract a number of brilliant young people every year who were willing to commit their entire careers to public service.
Now, that pipeline is nearly broken. At this moment, no one in their right mind would join the federal government—massive layoffs are happening, and every office is being downsized. But the bigger issue is long-term: How do you convince people that this won’t happen again? How do you get young professionals to invest years in degrees and early-career government positions when they know that the next administration could just come in and fire everyone again?
The damage is much more severe than just a single administration. The US may be the most extreme case, but we see versions of this pattern in every patrimonial system. Take the Tusk government in Poland—they’re struggling to restore trust in the judiciary and undo the changes made by the PiS party. Rebuilding state institutions is incredibly difficult. The old joke applies here: It’s a lot easier to turn an aquarium into fish soup than it is to turn fish soup back into an aquarium.
The destruction of the State leaves behind a mess that takes years, even decades, to repair. So I think we have to be very realistic about the crisis we face. This won’t be fixed with just one or two elections. Those of us who care about democratic states that provide public goods in the modern world—and I hope that’s a lot of people—will have to start with education, collective action, and actively countering this disastrous assault on institutions that truly matter.
Loyalty Is the Most Important Currency in Trump’s America
US President Donald Trump applauds from the White House balcony during a welcoming ceremony for the Washington Nationals baseball team on the South Lawn in Washington, D.C., on November 4, 2019. Photo: Evan El-Amin.
Trump frequently positioned himself against the “deep state,” portraying government institutions as adversaries. To what extent do you see this rhetoric as a deliberate political strategy versus a genuine ideological stance?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: I don’t think patrimonial rulers are best understood as ideological. That’s the big difference between patrimonialism and fascism—certainly compared to Nazism. Leaders like Hitler and Mussolini had ideologies; they had visions of the future. You could say those visions were crackpot or outright evil, and certainly they were. But their argument was: We know where we’re leading this new empire—it will be racially pure, or it will be a resurrection of Roman virtue. Young people will imbibe this spirit, march in step, and be mobilized.
In contrast, patrimonialism tends to demobilize society. This was true of the old Tsarist style of rule, as well as older monarchies and other non-ideological regimes, which essentially said: Let the ruler take care of the state; it’s his personal possession—gender intended. Ordinary people, the Narod in Russian (the masses), were not supposed to have a direct connection to the state, which is the opposite of fascism and other mobilizational ideologies.
When it comes to Trump himself, there’s clearly no coherent ideology. He has shifted positions on all sorts of issues, but people make the mistake of assuming that means he has no center at all. He does—his center is that he alone can fix it. He sees himself as the anointed leader—now even believing that he is divinely chosen—to govern America’s patrimony.
The consistent theme underlying everything he does is that loyalty is the most important currency. If you’re not perfectly loyal, he will punish you. The deep state, those with expertise in impersonal legal norms, are actually “fakers” who need to be destroyed. And the US itself should be treated as the property of the ruling party, the ruling state, and, ultimately, the ruling household—namely, the Trump family.
We even see echoes of imperial-style patrimonialism here. Historically, patrimonial rulers made claims on territories that were supposedly part of their rightful domain. Putin, for example, asserts that Ukraine is inherently part of Russia. Now, with Trump, we start to see similar rhetoric—claims that Greenland, Canada, or even Panama somehow “belong” to the US. This imperialist mindset, tied to a patrimonial vision of governance, is something to watch closely.
Misinformation Thrives When ‘People Are Not Hearing Both Perspectives in Real Time’
Your studies highlight how distrust in government is often fueled by misinformation. How did Trump’s presidency contribute to this, and what long-term effects do you foresee on public trust in US institutions?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: It really is a big part of the problem—no question. Social media, the internet more generally, the decline of local newspapers, and, again, the decline of trust in the so-called legacy media have made it much more difficult to get a coherent message out. Not everybody would have agreed with it, but at least elites in local politics across each state in the US, in each major city, used to have some common points of reference.
Back in the day, it was impossible to make a completely baseless claim and have it be repeated by media outlets all over the United States. That simply couldn’t have happened because not only did you have professional journalists reporting in each locality, but there was also the Fairness Doctrine—before the Reagan administration eliminated it. Under this rule, if you made one claim, you had to allow equal space for the opposing claim.
These sound like quaint notions now, but we actually need to return to them. Restoring the Fairness Doctrine would go a long way. I don’t know exactly how you would enforce it in today’s environment, but imagine if every podcaster or news show that put out an outrageous claim—say, all the election machines are rigged—had to give equal time immediately after for someone to say, ‘Actually, there’s no evidence for that whatsoever, and the people making this claim have been thoroughly debunked.’ Right now, people are not hearing both perspectives in real time. They are only hearing their point of view, and that clearly makes rebuilding trust difficult.
One last comparative point: If you look at the history of failed democracies, it’s not just social media that causes breakdowns. Weimar Germany famously fell into extreme party polarization, leading to a situation where budgets couldn’t be passed, and the political deadlock ultimately created the conditions for autocracy and Nazism. And all of that happened well before social media or the internet.
So, while misinformation and echo chambers exacerbate these crises today, they are not the only ways societies break down. However, once polarization takes hold, and each side of a divided society finds its own media outlets to reinforce its perspective—while completely distrusting all others—then it becomes incredibly difficult to restore public trust in government institutions.
Putin Is the Starting Point for the 21st-Century Wave of Patrimonialism
Nested dolls depicting authoritarian and populist leaders Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan displayed among souvenirs in Moscow on July 7, 2018. Photo: Shutterstock.
You discuss the global assault on modern governance. In what ways did Trump’s administration mirror or influence similar movements in countries like Hungary, Brazil, or the UK under Brexit leadership?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: The question of where it began is part of our book, and we make a claim that people found hard to believe but that we really stand by: it started with Putin.
We argue this partly through chronology. If you look carefully at the evidence before the rise of Putin in 2000 and the decades after, you had populism, of course—as you know better than anyone. There were plenty of populist movements in Europe, and they would rise on the far right or far left. They would sometimes gain parliamentary representation and make coalition-building difficult, but they never formed governments.
They were either systematically excluded from governance by pacts among mainstream parties, or they simply never achieved the electoral success to do so. The one breakthrough before Putin was Berlusconi and Forza Italia, where he briefly became Prime Minister in the 1990s. But his quick loss of power proves the rule—only after 2000, with a very close alliance with Putin, did Berlusconi’s leadership begin to take on more familiar patrimonial features.
So we place a lot of emphasis on Putin’s example. We think this is both emulation and direct support. It’s true that the Putin regime has funded pro-Russian parties worldwide, particularly in Europe. They have also pushed disinformation campaigns that serve the interests of the Russian Federation and its increasingly imperial ambitions.
Take Brexit, for example—the UK Parliamentary Commission concluded that Russia’s role in disinformation mattered in the referendum. Moscow has not been passive in this process. But beyond that, we argue the biggest factor was people simply looking at Putin’s model and realizing: “It never occurred to us before that you could build a 19th-century-style state in the 21st century—but look at what this guy has done.”
People thought Russia was finished. To quote a famous 2001 headline, Russia was seen as a laughingstock. International relations realists ignored it. And yet, Putin managed to reassert Russia as a great power, influencing global events—from Syria to US elections. Those who hated the liberal center, mostly on the right, but also some on the left, began saying: “Whatever’s going on in Russia, we need to figure it out. This guy has proven we no longer have to listen to the experts. We can beat the technocrats. We can restore traditional forms of machismo, religious veneration, and hierarchy.”
This emulation factor was very direct—for Orbán, for Netanyahu, and many others. These are empirical links, not speculation. People were surprised by our argument at first. But now, with recent events—including Trump’s presidency and the invasion of Ukraine—more people are asking us: “Did you really say Russia was the starting point for this?” Yes. That’s exactly what we said.
Patrimonialism Is Gaining Momentum—How Do We Stop It?
Even after his presidency, Trump’s influence may remain strong in shaping Republican politics. Do you see the attack on modern government as a continuing movement, and how might a second Trump term escalate these trends?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: I’m hoping when you say ‘a second Trump term,’ you mean this one—not the one that would come after. There’s already a lot of talk about amending the Constitution in the United States or reinterpreting it in a way that would allow him to serve beyond this term. This is very reminiscent of discussions in Russia in the 2000s, when Putin had to circumvent the official two-term limit in the Russian Constitution—first by installing his Prime Minister and then by changing the Constitution to allow himself to rule indefinitely.
These kinds of discussions matter for your question because, ultimately, these leaders must first be defeated before we can talk about reversing these trends. As long as they remain in power, the patrimonial style of governance will continue to be a dominant force—as everyone in the world can now see.
This is especially problematic when even China under Xi Jinping, while still a Leninist state with Leninist institutions, is increasingly taking on patrimonial features—with Xi posing as the father of the nation and asserting patrimonial rights to territories around China.
When China, the United States, and Russia—and to some extent Turkey, India, and Brazil—all lean in this direction, it becomes extremely challenging for the Macrons, the Scholzes, and the Starmers of the world. The remaining leaders who support modern democratic institutions are now struggling to figure out how to protect what’s left. So, the immediate problem is simply figuring out how to win in an increasingly lopsided world where patrimonialism is gaining momentum.
The longer-term challenge, which we discussed earlier, is about rebuilding a vision for the future—one that defends a modern, liberal state in the US (though, ironically, you can’t even use the word “liberal” anymore without it being dismissed as leftist radicalism or Marxism).
There is an enormous rhetorical and mobilizational challenge ahead—convincing ordinary citizens to resist these trends by making the case that patrimonialism doesn’t serve their public welfare. It doesn’t create a fair society. It fosters corruption, undermines integrity, and ignores public opinion. All of these principles—fairness, accountability, and good governance—depend on the survival of the modern state. Now is the time to spread that message.
The State Itself Is Under Assault—Democracy Comes Next
Demonstrators gather at the US Capitol on President’s Day to protest the actions of President Trump’s administration and billionaire Elon Musk in Washington, D.C., on February 17, 2025. Photo: Rena Schild.
And lastly, Professor Hanson, if modern governance is indeed under siege, what steps can be taken—either by policymakers, scholars, or civil society—to rebuild public trust in democratic institutions and counter the assault on the state?
Professor Stephen E. Hanson: We were beginning to speak about this, and it’s the question that we all really have to engage with together.
We end the book by saying that proper diagnosis helps on its own. One of the key steps is simply getting people to understand that it is the state itself that is under assault—and, in the longer term, democracy as well. Because if you don’t have a modern state, you eventually can’t run free and fair elections. You don’t have the impersonal procedures necessary to count votes fairly. Instead, you end up with what you see in Russia—political pressure to produce vote totals that show the leader receiving 90% or 80% of the vote, or some other absurd outcome. And that isn’t democracy. So, we are absolutely not saying that democratic erosion isn’t a problem—it is a serious problem. But it is a longer-term issue. The immediate, short-term problem is the destruction of state capacity—something that is already happening in the US and other places as well.
So, what can we do about it?
Diagnosis – The first step is recognizing that this is a political issue that must be tackled directly.
Reviving Public Service – The second is getting people to care about public service as a legitimate and worthwhile career—which is incredibly difficult these days, as I mentioned earlier, given the material concerns of young people. But, at the same time, I see many students at William & Mary every day who genuinely want to do good in the world—who want their lives to be dedicated to service.
And the truth is, there are many people like that around the world—especially in modern democracies—who would agree that if we don’t have the institutional capacity to deal with climate change, the next pandemic, immigration, or any number of existential global threats, then we simply won’t be able to solve them. As a species, we will not succeed.
So, I think another crucial step is getting the rhetoric right. Instead of constantly accusing patrimonial leaders and their supporters of being anti-democratic, which only alienates their voters, we should frame the argument differently. If you tell Trump voters, “Trump is an anti-democrat, and you’re an idiot for supporting him,” they will naturally reject that. They will see it as just another elitist telling them what to think—which only fuels the cycle of resentment. But if you frame the issue as “What’s happening is the destruction of the state’s ability to do good in the world,” you can actually win people over.
Maria Christofidis is a master’s student in Philosophy at the University of Oxford. She also holds a first-class joint honours MSci in Physics and Philosophy from King’s College London. Her primary research is in political philosophy, with a particular focus on states’ moral obligations towards refugees and undocumented migrants. Currently, she is working on her Master’s thesis, entitled Why Prospective Migrants aren’t Morally Obliged to Comply with Immigration Law,in which she explores the moral relationship between states and prospective immigrants.
How significant is the role of social media and digital platforms in fueling democratic deconsolidation, and are these platforms more influential than traditional media?
