Former President Barack Obama’s recent remarks on the global erosion of democratic norms, delivered to activists from Hungary and Poland, are increasingly viewed as a pointed critique of America’s own political landscape under figures like Donald Trump, highlighting shared struggles against authoritarianism and the weaponization of state institutions.
Former President Barack Obama has consistently voiced his concerns about the trajectory of democracy worldwide. His recent discussions with democracy activists from Hungary and Poland, held in London, underscored a “rising wave of authoritarianism sweeping the globe.” These warnings, initially broad, are now widely interpreted as increasingly directed toward the United States, given the current political climate and the actions of his successor, Donald Trump.
Obama’s Alarming Assessment of Democratic Erosion
During his address, Obama detailed the methods employed by those he views as undermining democratic principles. He spoke of politicians who “target civil society, undermine freedom of the press, weaponize the justice system.” He stressed that no nation is immune, stating, “Even countries that thought they were immune from wholesale assaults on democracy now understand that we’re all part of one struggle.” This sentiment highlights a crucial shift: the recognition that democratic backsliding is not merely a distant problem but a pervasive threat that can touch even historically stable democracies.
While Obama refrained from explicitly naming President Trump, his criticisms have taken an increasingly direct posture against his successor throughout various public appearances this year, expressing significant concern about the state of American politics, as detailed in a CNN analysis.
The Echoes of Authoritarian Playbooks in US Politics
The conversation Obama hosted involved figures deeply engaged in resisting authoritarian trends: Sándor Léderer, co-founder of an anti-corruption watchdog in Hungary; Stefania Kapronczay, former co-director of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union; and Zuzanna Rudzinska-Bluszcz, who served as Deputy Justice Minister for Poland. These panelists had previously participated in the Obama Foundation’s young leaders program, a detail that some critics, particularly from the conservative spectrum, interpret as evidence of Obama’s attempts to influence foreign politics towards a left-leaning agenda, viewing “strengthen democracy” as a euphemism for foreign influence operations.
International Precedents: Hungary and Poland
The choice of activists from Hungary and Poland was particularly telling. Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is a vocal proponent of what he terms “illiberal democracy,” a concept that prioritizes national identity and state power over liberal democratic norms. Orbán’s governance has been widely credited with inspiring aspects of Trump’s playbook for government, and he has been praised by Trump as a “very great leader” and a “very strong man,” according to a CNN report. In Poland, a right-wing populist candidate aligned with the Law and Justice party recently secured a narrow presidential election victory, a development seen as a potential setback for centrist efforts to dismantle authoritarian legacies in the country.
Domestic Parallels: Trump’s Challenges to US Institutions
Obama’s veiled critiques align with several documented actions taken by President Trump. These include attempts to deploy military assets to Democratic-led cities against the wishes of local leaders, encouraging the Justice Department to pursue indictments against political rivals, and publicly criticizing judges who have moved to block his executive actions. Such actions resonate with Obama’s warnings about the weaponization of the justice system and challenges to civil society.
Trump’s emphasis on returning to “the way things were” with his “Make America Great Again” slogan was also implicitly addressed by Obama, who characterized such promises as “empty ones” that fail to build new solutions. The indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James on allegations of mortgage fraud, which her allies condemned as a politicization of the justice system for Trump’s personal grievances, further illustrates the concerns about the integrity of judicial processes.
Understanding the Roots of Populist Frustration
Obama acknowledged that the rise of populism, both domestically and internationally, is not solely attributable to authoritarian ambitions but also to systemic failures within existing democratic frameworks. He conceded that “sclerotic bureaucracies and unresponsive politicians” have often paved the way for this global populist wave.
He articulated several contributing factors:
- Governments losing touch: Both center-right and center-left governments have, in many instances, failed to deliver on the basic hopes and dreams of their citizens, leading to widespread frustration with government itself.
- Wealth gaps and complex economies: Modern economies have created significant wealth disparities, leaving many feeling a profound lack of control over their lives and perceptions that their politicians are equally powerless against global forces.
- The role of social media: Digital platforms are “very good at making people fearful of or angry about those who don’t agree with them,” exacerbating polarization and tribalism.
This environment, Obama suggested, “opens the door for right-wing populism, anti-immigrant sentiment, anger, grievances.”
Authoritarianism: Breaking vs. Building
A key distinction Obama drew was between the tactics of authoritarians and the demands of true democratic progress. He argued that authoritarians primarily operate “just by breaking things” rather than constructing new alternatives. Their focus is on tearing down existing structures, removing constraints on their own power, and empowering a small inner circle.
Conversely, solving complex societal problems like healthcare or education requires the arduous task of “creating new structures.” It is not simply about “getting a cut, taking a piece of whatever is being done and making sure your friends are rewarded and your enemies are punished.” This highlights the fundamental difference between governance for personal or factional gain and governance aimed at collective betterment through robust, adaptable institutions.
The Future of Democracy: A Shared Struggle
Obama’s warnings serve as a profound call for introspection and action, urging democracies to find new forms of participation that can empower citizens and make them feel that their actions genuinely make a difference. His perspective underscores that while the threats to democracy are global, the responsibility to safeguard and strengthen it begins at home. As he once famously stated, “when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that, in our democracy, government is us.” This core principle remains a powerful reminder of the collective ownership and responsibility inherent in a democratic system, especially when facing the rising tide of authoritarianism.
