Since the unexpected election of Donald Trump in November 2016 as the 45th President of the United States, there has been a rise in ultra-right or far-right politics and the emboldening of despotic leaders around the globe. In general, far-right politics is characterised by extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies. In policy terms, its hallmarks include anti-immigration, anti-globalisation, anti-abortion, racism, misogyny, ultra-nationalism, and protectionism.
Yet, there is a ring of populism to far-right politics, one that gives voters the often false hope that lost jobs will be recovered and national (if not racial or religious) purity will be maintained as a pathway to economic recovery or buoyancy. Of course, not all far-right politicians adopt all of these planks, but most often do. They also often reject the idea of climate change, while supporting the right to gun ownership
A good example of such a politician emerged recently in Brazil in Jair Bolsonaro, a far-right politician, who won Brazil’s presidential run-off election on Sunday, October 28, 2018. He carries all the baggage of a far-right politician as indicated above, which earned him the nickname of “Trump of the Tropics”.
Like Trump, Bolsonaro has polarised Brazil and provoked outrage on issues ranging from abortion to race, and from homosexuality to immigration. He is as intolerant of Muslims as he is contemptuous of women. He once remarked that a fellow lawmaker was not worth raping because she was “very ugly” and not his “type”. Besides, like Trump, Bolsonaro plans to pull Brazil out of the Paris agreement on climate change and move the Brazilian embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
We have to wait and see how things will work out for Bolsonaro and Brazil. Already, we know that things have not been going well with Trump both at home and abroad. He is in the middle of a protracted investigation into his role in the Russian meddling in the election that brought him to power. He is also enmeshed in a trade war, spurned by his arbitrary tariffs. His anti-immigration and border protection policies have put him at loggerheads with most Americans and their southern neighbours.
Trump’s divisive rhetoric and inciting tweets are believed to have spurned a rise in violence and hate actions. For example, there has been a rise in gun violence across the US since Trump took office. Some Trump apologists seem to have even taken a more deadly route. Barely two weeks ago, packages with pipe bombs were sent to top Democrats and key opponents of Trump and to the CNN’s New York newsroom. Thanks to the efficient American intelligence and security infrastructure, they were detected and intercepted.
Trump’s authoritarian tendencies are manifested in his tweets and some executive actions he has taken, such as a unilateral travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries. He embraces autocratic leaders, such as Kim Jong-un of North Korea, Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, and absolute monarchs, such as Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.
Trump’s romance with these despots emboldened them into believing that they could do anything and get away with it. What they forget is the Big-Brother-Watching-You kind of world we now live in. Such is the case with Prince Salman, who thinks that Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist who had criticised him, could be murdered in vain (for details, see Kole Omotoso, Jamal Khashoggi: Insider into outsider, The Guardian, October 28, 2018).
Khashoggi’s murder should be understood within the wider context of media bashing and the inducement of violence by Trump, who has said so many nasty things about the American press. Autocrats like Trump have adopted his negative rhetoric of referring to mainstream media reporting as fake news. Worse still, Trump’s words and body language are being used to justify violent action.
Very recently, the Nigerian military shamefully used Trump’s words to justify the use of lethal force against Shiite protesters, by tweeting a video of Trump in which he suggested that immigrants could be shot if they throw rocks at the US military. The Nigerian Army spokesman, John Agim, reportedly confirmed to the New York Times that the Trump video was posted in reaction to the condemnation of the army for using weapons against protesters. However, in the midst of widespread condemnation, Trump had walked back his statement and the Nigerian military has deleted the tweet with the video.
There is a curious link between far-right politics and violence. That link is provided by social media, where conspiracy theories abound which could incite or inspire violence, even acts of terrorism. Social media provides far-right leaders with a platform for promoting a sense of crisis and deterioration, which they then promise to return to normalcy. For example, after wiling up his supporters with tales of American retrogression in various sectors, Trump often invites them to join him in making “America Great Again”.
It is now becoming more and more obvious that social media poses a danger to democracy by shifting debate from regulated media, courts, and other democratic institutions to unregulated platforms that polarise debate, by purveying anger, hatred, and falsehoods. Such platforms often dilute facts to the point that arguments are driven to the extremes.
Yet, this is the kind of media Trump has embraced as an alternative to mainstream media, because it allows him to say whatever he likes anyhow he likes it. He has personal and official Twitter handles, from which he spews divisive, derogatory, and inciting rhetoric, spreading fear and anger. With over 50 million followers, even his most innocuous tweet could find resonance with someone somewhere, who is on the edge.
A good example is Cesar Sayoc Jr., the suspect behind the pipe bombs mailed to leading Democrats and opponents of Trump. Sayoc is a registered Republican and a Trump supporter. All the targets of his pipe bomb have been targets of Trump’s nasty rhetoric. For example, he has described President Barack Obama as “a racist”, “horrible”, “a total disaster”, and “looking like an incompetent fool”. Trump even suggested that “you won’t see another black president for generations!” Some Trump supporters may well have taken this statement as a coded instruction not to vote for a black person.
If Trump could bring down his immediate predecessor in the presidency with this kind of verbal thuggery, who else could be spared an attack by his supporters? Just as some of them have taken to verbal thuggery like Trump, others have chosen to express their anger through physical (often gun) violence. It is no wonder then that gun violence has risen significantly since Trump became President.
There are striking parallels between Trump and President Muhammadu Buhari in the rise of authoritarian tendencies and violence, although their manifestations differ. Besides, Trump’s despotism is checked by the robust democratic institutions in the United States, whereas the Nigerian presidency has been able to run roughshod on democratic institutions, by exploiting their weaknesses. However, while perpetrators of violence are tracked down and punished in the US, the story is less encouraging in Nigeria.
Nevertheless, there are pointers to a retreat of democracy in both countries. For example, there is an ongoing debate about voter disenfranchisement in the US as politicians on the right tighten voting laws, which target minorities, such as showing a driving licence before voting. In Nigeria, political parties repeatedly fail the rudimentary test of internal democracy, by adopting undemocratic methods in their primaries. Above all, leaders of both countries often fail to respond appropriately to citizens’ needs and demands, while favouring or disfavouring particular segments of society with impunity.
Voters in both countries will soon have the opportunity to assess these tendencies and practices and decide appropriately in the next ritual of democratic renewal.
END
Be the first to comment