Doesn't the world deserve respectable leaders who put an end to the appeasement of the masses with slogans and populist actions? Many believed that increased awareness and culture in the 21st century would create a bulwark against this sort of behavior and that it would be voted out at the polls if it were tested.
We have seen too many examples over the past few weeks to count, so where do we start?
From the United States? It seems that the most powerful force in the world is sleepwalking towards repeating the “scenario” of the election, in what looks like it will be a race between the same two men in their eighties that introduces nothing new... Democratic President Joe Biden and his Republican predecessor Donald Trump.
Or from Britain, where a Conservative government - whose prime minister and senior ministers all have immigrant backgrounds and belong to minority groups - has built its populist political strategy around the “expulsion” of asylum seekers?
Or should we begin with Germany, a country whose great civilization was tarred by Nazism and whose historical “guilt complex,” and a network of political interests, coalesce to leave it defending the atrocities committed by the children of the victims of Nazism in Gaza?
Or from France, which maintains delusions of being a global power that understands the anxieties of the peoples of the world and understands the contradictions of its civilizations... but has put a young duo in charge of foreign policy. This duo has not undergone the experiences or adopted the value systems necessary for developing a mechanism for dialogue and understanding with others.
Or from the Davos Economic Forum in Switzerland, where we heard a rattled populist who had been carried to power by the despair of the Argentine people deliver a foolish lecture on politics and economics, attacking every known system of governance in the world?
These are just examples of the things we have seen and continue to see. They reflect a regrettable state of affairs; politicians lack the credibility needed to build a global system worth complying with and respecting. From the Gaza Strip to Argentina, and from the Indian subcontinent to Ukraine, all the slogans that had emerged at the end of the Cold War are collapsing.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, many believed that the grand battle ended decisively. Thus, there seemed to be no justification for delaying humanity’s march towards happiness, peace, coexistence, prosperity, and justice. However, it later became apparent, to hundreds of millions of naive and well-intentioned people, that human nature is not as they had been to think it was in places of worship, partisan forums, or the “trenches of struggle.”
Moreover, the victorious bloc was not a “charity” seeking to bring people together, nor was it a hospital whose mission was treating diseases. Rather, it was a fierce warrior in an arena that did not accommodate the weak.
Indeed, as soon as the Cold War ended, putting an end to the East-West conflict, we saw the emergence of various ethnic, religious, and sectarian struggles and wars that sought to “correct historical wrongs.”
It did not take long for war to erupt in the Balkans and for the map of Europe to be drawn. It was followed by the wars in the Caucasus, and before the decade was complete, we reached Ukraine.
Moscow's return to the arena, this time in a nationalist guise, was one of these attempts to “right historical wrongs,” armed with a strong memory and a bitter indignation. The outcomes of this new state of affairs that emerged to the West of what used to be the “Soviet sphere” ... were repeated in the South in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, the West, elated by its victory, ignored the factors driving Moscow, as well as the dynamics of China's rise and the ascent of religious politics as an alternative to nationalism and secularism in South Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.
Especially in the Middle East, Washington's insistence on being the only one entitled to conclude regional peace initiatives created not only a terribly imbalanced approach to ensuring true and lasting peace. it also precipitated the rise of an extremely radical right in Israel... Indeed, the Israeli right was fully convinced that it had the right to “drive” US policy in the region and “exploit” the US to further its projects.
As we have seen and continue to see, the decline in the “quality” of US leadership (be it Republican or Democrat) over recent decades has made it easier for the Israeli religious right to openly declare their intentions. Today, with the Gaza crisis, we find that what had once been small fringe groups of religious right-wing factions in the Knesset are now imposing their political agenda on the Israeli government. This government, in turn, has imposed its political agenda on Washington. It has been empowered by the launch of an “election year” in which both the Republican and Democratic parties compete to appease the American “Israeli lobby.”
Even outside of Washington, the “Israeli lobby” has exploited the October 7 attack in Gaza to reshape the “political narrative” on the Arab-Israeli conflict to their liking. In this effort, they were helped by the new Western definition of “antisemitism.” They also capitalized on Iran’s expansionist ambitions and Europe’s alarming descent towards populism, and hostility towards immigrants, refugees, and Muslims more broadly.
Here, it is worth noting that these “lobbies” are no longer satisfied with just infiltrating parties on the right and left - as is the case in the US, Britain, France, and others. They are now seeking to influence forces that had long been considered marginal and idealistic, unworthy of being infiltrated, like “the Greens”!
The logical explanation for this phenomenon is the decline in the quality of leadership and ethical standards of political institutions, even with democratic accountability. Indeed, this accountability is hindered when the “lobby” infiltrates both alternative - or options - competitors through services, money, and influence.
Wasn’t it the British politician Lord Acton who said: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?”
