Broadly, two concepts of rule in a society have vied for supremacy in the political organisations of countries: a strong person (usually a man) versus systematised rules of institutions. The examples are Stalin, Mao and De Gaulle’s rule versus elected Churchill’s or Roosevelt’s governments. Western governments have largely been democratic, organised around institutions and laws.
It seems that the rule of strong persons is in ascendancy these days. Putin, Xi and Prince Mohammed bin Salman are some of the current rulers as persons, among many others. In recent times, another phenomenon has emerged, namely the rise of strong-person rule through elections. A strong person gets elected and assumes authoritarian powers with little or no democratic checks.
President Trump’s rule is a striking example of this process, namely, authoritarian rule by an elected person. It has reopened the question of whether persons or institutions are more important in the political order of a society. For a long time, most political philosophers have maintained that institutions and rules are the basis of a stable political order. Yet Trump’s rise in the US, the leading promoter of democratic rule in the world, highlights the process of a person’s rule installed by elections.
The ease with which a long-established democracy, the USA, has been brought under a person’s rule is a lesson to be reckoned with. It illustrates that a strong person with powers to reward and punish can subdue agencies meant to limit his/her actions. This is what has happened in the US. The Republican Party and Congress have submitted to his pressures. By the implicit threat of jeopardising the elections of members resisting his policies, Trump has managed to subdue them.
Why has this been possible? Underlying the political order is a social contract, which is expressed in laws but also in norms and values shared by a society. The enforcement of norms and values is by social expectations and, in extreme cases, by ostracism. There are no fines, imprisonment, or even visits by police for breaking norms.
The current international order discourages such a rule. So, in many countries, military rule puts on a civilian face by co-opting civilian politicians as front persons
For example, a public official is not expected to monetarily benefit from his office. Yet an unscrupulous person may find ‘legal’ ways of obtaining money and/or property in the names of friends and relatives. Or she/he may involve critics in false cases. There is no legal recourse for such behaviour, only social and moral restraints.
The surprise is the ease with which the US, for long a world leader in enacting democratic practices, has been swept by a strong person. Apart from Trump’s manoeuvring, it appears that the democratic institutions have a structural feature or path to organise the majority acting together. There seems to be no path to restrain Trump now. He challenges election results if they go against him and ignores courts’ adverse verdicts.
A strong leader with authoritarian instincts sometimes also has appeal for people disenchanted with the endless discussions and slow actions of democratic processes. Culture also has a role in favouring strong personalised leadership among countries with weak and relatively short histories of democratic ideologies.
At this point in history, major powers, e.g. China, Russia, and, in Trump the US, are ruled by persons more than institutions.
Strong person rule can be enthroned by elections, as has happened in the US. Similarly, in India, the elected Modi is practising a form of personal rule.
The military rule common in the southern countries can form a government based on the rule of commanders. Yet the current international order discourages such rule. So, in many countries, military rule puts on a civilian face by co-opting civilian politicians as front persons. Pakistan is an illustrative example, where military commanders oversee elected leaders’ decisions. Usually, military rule is the rule of a commander-in-chief, a form of strong-man personal rule.
In all these various forms, presently, democracy is largely limited to European states, where the European Union oversees major policies. Most of the Middle East has various forms of kingdoms and is ruled by military or authoritarian religious leaders, as in Iran and Afghanistan.
The ascendancy of rule by persons is setting back the institutionalisation of democratic practices of the past few decades. It also introduces uncertainty to economic investments and, consequently, growth and social justice. It may offer a façade of stability, but it lays the basis of long-term political instability. This tendency has to be resisted. The rule of rules is what the modern economy and social consciousness demand. The sooner the world gets back to that, the better it will be for political stability, economic growth, and justice.