An Uncomfortable Reckoning

 An Uncomfortable Reckoning

The ascendancy of "strongman" leaders like Trump, Xi, Putin, and Modi can be understood as both a reflection and a catalyst of shifting societal values—a movement away from earlier prevalent ideals of “democratic” inclusivity, social responsibility, and mutual trust toward an ethos centred on interest focussed and group-specific gains. This shift may suggest an underlying "crisis of legitimacy" in democratic institutions, as theorized by Habermas (1975), wherein traditional democratic norms are seen as insufficient for addressing the pressing anxieties and desires of contemporary populations. These leaders’ appeal aligns with a global trend where individuals and groups, feeling alienated by globalisation, economic inequality, and rapid cultural change, seek leaders who promise direct, often exclusionary benefits over collective welfare (Moffitt, 2016; Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017).

Transactional Leadership and the Erosion of the Social Contract

This "strongman" leadership, marked by a transactional model of loyalty, shifts the social contract from a collective, inclusive framework to one where followers align based on what the leader can materially or symbolically deliver to them specifically. This transactional loyalty echoes Weber's concept of "charismatic authority," where legitimacy derives not from rational-legal authority but from the followers’ perceived personal benefit (Weber, 1978). In effect, followers’ support is conditional on the leader’s capacity to deliver on promises, reinforcing a model that treats governance as a marketplace of individual or group interests, moving from the earlier ideal of serving the common good (Crouch, 2004).

Redefining Strength and the Normalization of Exclusionary Policies

The redefinition of "strength" as dominance and decisiveness, rather than as the capacity to balance diverse societal needs, signals a shift in leadership values. This redefinition may be reflective of a post-truth era where populist leaders gain traction by appealing to affective, rather than rational responses (Mounk, 2018). Followers are drawn to leaders who prioritize in-group benefits, a dynamic that Mudde and Kaltwasser (2017) describe as a “thin-centred ideology” of populism that emphasizes the “pure people” against “corrupt elites.” Such framing legitimizes exclusionary policies that were traditionally constrained by earlier norms, thereby normalizing divisive practices as necessary “sacrifices” to ensure the prosperity of loyal constituencies (Stanley, 2008).

Nationalism as a Proxy for Self-Interest

These leaders may tend to employ nationalistic rhetoric to intertwine self-interest with the identity of the nation, a tactic that Arendt (1951) noted as a hallmark of totalitarian regimes, wherein the concept of the nation becomes indivisible from the leader's vision. By presenting themselves as protectors of national identity, these leaders foster a moral rationalization for self-interested policies, legitimizing actions that prioritize specific groups over universal values of justice and inclusivity. This framing aligns with Carl Schmitt’s theory of “the political,” where unity is achieved through the identification of an enemy, reinforcing in-group solidarity and justifying policies that may marginalize outsiders (Schmitt, 2007).

Psychological Impacts on Followers: The Acceptance of Authoritarianism

Followers’ acceptance of authoritarian tendencies within this paradigm reflects Adorno’s concept of the “authoritarian personality,” wherein individuals under stress or fear of uncertainty gravitate toward strong figures promising stability and protection (Adorno et al., 1950). Psychological studies have shown that during periods of socio-economic instability, individuals are more likely to accept and even desire authoritarianism as a means of achieving security and coherence (Norris & Inglehart, 2019). Thus, the transactional relationship with strongman leaders fosters a selective empathy—sympathy for in-group interests but tolerance for, or even support of, authoritarian practices that marginalize others (Foa & Mounk, 2016).

Undermining Civic Responsibility and Democratic Engagement

The "strongman" persona tends to discourage broad civic responsibility, promoting instead a reliance on leaders to "take care of things." This reshapes civic engagement, as followers become passive consumers of governance rather than active participants (Putnam, 2000). This passivity, coupled with the acceptance of exclusionary policies, risks entrenching a form of “post-democracy” (Crouch, 2004) where the appearance of democratic processes remains, but the substantive, inclusive engagement that defines democracy is increasingly hollowed out. As citizens disengage from political and civic life, leaders gain greater latitude to operate with minimal accountability, further weakening the democratic foundations meant to check and balance power (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018).

Are We Witnessing a Shift in Global Leadership Values?

The rise of these leaders suggests an emerging societal re-evaluation of what constitutes effective leadership. Traditional democratic values, such as inclusiveness, social cohesion, and public accountability, appear increasingly overshadowed by a pragmatic focus on self-interest and immediacy. As political theorist Mounk (2018) observes, there is a global shift toward “illiberal democracy,” where leaders gain support through popular appeal but sidestep the ethical and civic duties of democratic governance. This trend not only redefines expectations for leaders but may signify a recalibration of societal values themselves, where “what’s in it for me?” eclipses collective social responsibility.

This shift poses significant challenges  to the resilience of democratic values. As theorists such as Fukuyama (2014) and Diamond (2019) suggest, when societies prioritize self-interest over shared responsibility, democratic institutions weaken, rendering them vulnerable to exploitation by leaders who view governance as a means to secure loyalty through conditional exchanges rather than as a platform for collective progress. Thus, the uncomfortable question we face is whether this trend represents a temporary aberration or a more enduring transformation in how societies understand and value leadership in an increasingly fragmented world.

---

References

• Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. Harper.
• Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
• Crouch, C. (2004). Post-Democracy. Polity.
• Diamond, L. (2019). Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency. Penguin Press.
• Foa, R. S., & Mounk, Y. (2016). The Danger of Deconsolidation: The Democratic Disconnect. Journal of Democracy, 27(3), 5-17.
• Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation Crisis. Beacon Press.
• Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown.
• Moffitt, B. (2016). The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Stanford University Press.
• Mounk, Y. (2018). The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom is in Danger and How to Save It. Harvard University Press.
• Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press.
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.
• Schmitt, C. (2007). The Concept of the Political. University of Chicago Press.
• Stanley, B. (2008). The Thin Ideology of Populism. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(1), 95-110.
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press.