Authoritarian Populism and Its Negative Implications for America’s Cities
Authoritarian Populism and Its Negative Implications for America’s Cities
A surge of authoritarian populism is disrupting politics in the United States, as it is in more than a few societies throughout the world. Consider Russia under Vladimir Putin, Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Hungary under Viktor Orban, or the Philippines under Rodrigo Duterte. Additionally, the past few years have seen populist movements and leaders emerging in other countries such as Brazil, Italy, India, Poland, and the United States (with the America First movement).
While each authoritarian populist regime has its own nuances, all are forms of an ideology or mode of governance that combines elements of authoritarianism and populism.[1] Such regimes typically feature a strong, dominant, and charismatic leader who presents himself, or herself, as the sole voice of the people, claiming to represent the interests of the common citizens against a corrupt elite or establishment.
These leaders typically espouse anti-elite rhetoric, nationalism, and national identity. They tend to rely on direct and unfiltered communication with their followers, bypassing mainstream media channels in favor of social media platforms that establish a direct connection with their base of supporters. They nurture “us vs. them” mentalities, framing political issues as a battle between "good, ordinary people" and a perceived enemy which variously includes self-serving elites, scientists (global warming), public administrators (the “deep state”), ethnic or religious minorities (“Muslims’), immigrants (from south of the border), or other countries (China).
If authoritarian populist ideology gains much more influence in the United States, several anticipatable negative outcomes for urban areas are likely to occur. A first step in anticipating and counteracting these dire outcomes is to understand the causes that give rise to the power of this ideology in the first place.
Advanced industrial societies such as the United States are highly complex, large-scale, multi-faceted socio-technical systems. As such, changes within and around them are practically inevitable. Such changes are attributable to factors such as technological advancement, increases in specialization and the division of labor, and the social reorganization, realignment, and integration necessary to expand the economy and resource base to support a growing population.
Today, the speed of societal change in such systems has become mind-boggling. Rapid advancements in technology, particularly in the fields of information technology, communication, and transportation, have significantly accelerated the pace of societal change. The advent of the internet, mobile devices, and social media, together with artificial intelligence and other digital technologies have revolutionized how people connect, access information, and conduct business. These and related technological innovations have not only transformed industries but have also re-shaped social interactions, cultural practices, economic systems and institutions, leading to yet-ever-faster rates of societal change.
The experience of these rates of change make it exceedingly difficult for some people to meet their needs for continuity and coherence in their lives. They become disoriented and frustrated by their perceived lack of a sense of stability, consistency, and connectedness, and by their corresponding lack of a sense of meaningfulness, logic, and order in their experiences and understanding of the world. Many people lose their sense of predictability and security and find themselves unable to create a coherent narrative about their lives, values and actions. They find themselves unable to satisfy their natural human inclination to seek patterns, explanations, and a sense of understanding. Their consequent frustration gives rise to a search to restore or establish new forms of continuity and coherence and to regain a sense of stability and purpose.
When enough people thus begin to have such experiences, societal conditions become ripe for authoritarian populist leadership. In the perspective of people interested in the sustainability and development of urban areas, these are also conditions conducive to the predictable dark outcomes.
By tending to concentrate power at the national level, authoritarian populist regimes centralize decision-making processes. Such regimes diminish the autonomy of local governments, including city administrations, limiting their ability to address local concerns effectively. Decisions related to urban planning, infrastructure development, and public services get made without adequate consultation or consideration of local values, perspectives and needs.
Authoritarian regimes have been known to increase surveillance measures within cities as a way to monitor and control their populations. This can involve the deployment of surveillance technologies, such as CCTV cameras, facial recognition systems, or online monitoring tools. These measures can infringe upon privacy rights and restrict individual freedoms, impacting the daily lives of urban residents.
Authoritarian regimes typically suppress political dissent and limit the ability of citizens to participate in decision-making processes. This can restrict the ability of urban residents to voice their concerns, advocate for their rights, or actively engage in shaping the policies and development plans of their cities.
Sometimes, authoritarian regimes use urban planning and architecture as tools to reinforce their political agenda or project an image of power and control. They invest heavily in grand infrastructure projects or iconic structures to showcase their strength or to legitimize their regime. These projects can prioritize symbolism over practicality or neglect the needs of marginalized communities within cities.
Authoritarian regimes also tend to erode the social fabric of cities, including diversity and inclusion. They enact policies that discriminate against certain groups or stifle cultural and social diversity. This can lead to the marginalization of minority communities, decreased social cohesion, and a loss of vibrant urban culture.
To be sure, none of these or other negative outcomes is set in stone. Much depends upon the specific leaders, their particular ideologies, and the historical and cultural contexts in which they come to power. While some authoritarian populist regimes may prioritize urban development and invest in infrastructure, others neglect the needs of cities or use urban spaces as little more than a means of social control.
The prevention of these and other such negative outcomes requires a multifaceted approach that addresses the social, economic, and political factors that underlie the sorts of maladaptive psychological and emotional responses to high rates of change I just described.
Upholding and strengthening democratic institutions is crucial. This includes ensuring the independence of the judiciary, promoting freedom of the press, protecting human rights, and fostering a robust civil society. Strong democratic institutions serve as checks and balances on power, preventing authoritarian abuses and creating a foundation for democratic governance.
Investing in education and media literacy is essential for purposes of cultivating an informed and engaged citizenry. By promoting critical thinking skills, education helps individuals understand democratic values, rights, and responsibilities. Media literacy empowers individuals to discern reliable sources of information, distinguish facts from misinformation, and understand media biases. Educated citizens are more likely to actively participate in democratic processes and resist manipulation by populist leaders.
Addressing socioeconomic inequality helps to counter the grievances exploited by populist leaders. By prioritizing inclusive economic policies, equitable distribution of resources, and opportunities for all citizens, government policies can help to create a more equitable society and reduce the appeal of populist movements.
Promoting social cohesion and inclusivity helps prevent the divisions that are exploited by populist leaders. Encouraging constructive dialogue, inclusive policies, tolerance, and efforts to bridge societal divides can help counter the divisive rhetoric employed by populist movements.
The factors driving authoritarian populism are complex and deeply rooted so these and other countermeasures require long-term commitment. Implementing them requires the active engagement of governments, civil society, and citizens to protect and strengthen democratic principles and institutions. Given the rates of societal change today, and the difficulty some people have in coping with all of this change, the challenges and tasks required to muster and maintain this commitment are daunting. However, in more than a few ways, the future of urban America depends upon doing so.
Bill Bowen
[1] https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2018/09/Norris_Inglehart_Cultural_Backlash_Overview_Chapter-1.pdf