As authoritarian regimes rise globally, progressives face the urgent challenge of defending democracy without reinforcing the very divisions that fuel its decline.
In one of Ernest Hemingway’s famous novels, there is a legendary dialogue in which a man is asked how he went bankrupt. He replied that it happened in two ways: “Gradually and then suddenly.” This striking phrase resonates far beyond financial woes; it aptly describes how democracies unravel: gradually, and then suddenly.
Today, concerned observers warn that we are entering a new authoritarian era, which means we are already deep in its throes, though still at its outset. While exaggerated alarmism should be avoided, the evidence is sobering. Right-wing extremists, authoritarian populists, and ethno-nationalists are not merely gaining traction; they are often emerging as dominant political forces. Donald Trump is assembling a coalition of radicals, conspiracy theorists, and oligarchs. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni holds power. In Austria, the Freedom Party has evolved from right-wing populism to overt far-right extremism, becoming the leading party in recent elections. Viktor Orbán’s decade-and-a-half rule in Hungary has transformed the nation into a quasi-authoritarian regime where democracy is a mere façade. Slovakia is rapidly following suit, embracing Orbán’s model. In Argentina, Javier Milei is crafting an authoritarian libertarianism that liberates markets while suppressing dissent. As W.B. Yeats lamented, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.” The line, quoted often today, captures our fraught political moment.
What Is the Message?
Progressive parties — social democrats, US Democrats, and their counterparts — often respond to these developments by pledging to rebuild trust and regain public confidence. But what exactly is the message they claim to have understood? This crucial question remains vague, a dangerous oversight. If the wrong lessons are internalised, the consequences could be dire.
For decades, established social democracies largely ignored the gradual erosion of their voter base, clinging to “business as usual.” Critics and warning voices pointed out the alienation of traditional constituencies: economically precarious “regular people” who felt forgotten, disrespected, and unheard. These disenfranchised groups turned to authoritarian, anti-system parties in protest. Such analysis comforted progressives, implying that these voters were fundamentally good people making misguided choices. The solution seemed straightforward: make adjustments and regain their trust.
“They Want to See Us on Our Knees”
But what if this analysis, once accurate, has become outdated? Gradually and then suddenly, the situation may have shifted.
A former head of government once shared with me a disillusioned observation after attempting dialogue with disaffected groups: “They want to see us on our knees.” This reflects a troubling phenomenon: frustration morphing into destructive anger and anti-system fury. What begins as a sense of abandonment can harden into closed, extremist worldviews, fuelled by relentless propaganda. Such voters no longer seek solutions or dialogue; they desire upheaval for its own sake. This is the unifying thread between authoritarian populists and libertarian anti-institutionalists. Attempts to regain their trust may now be futile.
Balancing Determination and Polarisation
The rise of authoritarianism presents democratic forces with a formidable challenge. They must firmly counter authoritarian, extremist, and racist ideologies while defending democracy, liberalism, and social progress. Yet, polarisation often exacerbates extremism. Democratic left-wing parties must also protect the achievements of modernity and pluralism without appearing as mere defenders of a stagnant status quo.
This creates a strategic paradox: how to resist authoritarianism without reinforcing the notion that progressive forces are out-of-touch representatives of a failing system? Like a football team that defends too passively, purely defensive strategies rarely succeed. Worse, such approaches risk amplifying public pessimism, inadvertently validating the authoritarian narrative.
Building the Big Tent
For decades, the strength of traditional left-wing parties lay in their ability to unite disparate constituencies: progressive urban professionals, middle-class employees, and working-class communities, including those in rural and peripheral regions. Today, this “big tent” approach faces immense challenges. The cultural and economic divides within these groups make compromise increasingly difficult. Balanced messaging, essential for holding such coalitions together, often dilutes political clarity. In an era dominated by media-driven “branding,” this lack of clarity can be perilous. Add to this the polarising forces of social media, and the difficulty multiplies.
Progressivism in an Era of Stagnation
We are living in a time of pervasive stagnation. Economic growth has slowed, geopolitical crises abound, and global challenges such as war, disrupted supply chains, and neo-protectionism darken the horizon. Pessimism is pervasive, and optimism is in short supply. Against this backdrop, neither left-wing populism nor moderate progressive pragmatism has found a winning formula.
The Way Forward
Acknowledging these dilemmas is not an exercise in despair, but a necessary step toward effective strategy. Complex problems demand nuanced solutions. The future success of social democrats and democratic left-wing parties lies in balancing competing priorities:
- Firmly defend core values: Uphold democracy, pluralism, and the rule of law without succumbing to purely defensive postures.
- Forge broad coalitions: Sensitively unite diverse constituencies, mitigating unnecessary intra-progressive conflicts.
- Promote economic renewal: Advance industrial and economic policies that create tangible improvements in people’s lives.
- Revive optimism: Cultivate a spirit of progress and hope to counteract the prevailing mood of despair.
By addressing these challenges head-on, progressives can counter the gradual, and potentially sudden, erosion of democracy. The task is formidable, but the stakes could not be higher.
Robert Misik is a writer and essayist in Vienna. He publishes in many outlets, including Die Zeit and Die Tageszeitung. His awards include the John Maynard Keynes Society prize for economic journalism.