THE
POPULIST POLITICAL PARTIES AND THEIR OVERTHROW IN THE
PREVALENT ORDER***
By Maria Negrepont-Delivanis, Targoviste, 11/2018
By Maria Negrepont-Delivanis, Targoviste, 11/2018
Introduction
Over the last few years, the West has been gradually entering into uncharted waters. The familiar, the safe and the traditional retreats at a dizzying speed, and is been substituted by the unknown, the subversive and the threatening. Already, globalization, which has been with us for almost fifty years, is forced to give up its sovereignty not only to protectionism but also to an intensifying trade war. It could be argued that this shift, between the freedom of trade and the enforcement of trade controls, is part of the fundamental changes, which are to be expected approximately every 40 to 50 years[1], so that it does not justify particular concern. However, this is not the case with other kinds of upheavals that have recently invaded our lives, which can be clearly distinguished from what used to be in the past. It is precisely these characteristics that make the new international order unsearchable, while at the same time seeming to abolish very strong traditional distinctions, such as that between the right and left economic policies. These upheavals adopt choices of anti-globalization, such as the revival of nationalism, which was particularly hateful during the period of globalization, and was almost equated with fascist attitudes.
Nationalism
is now rapidly gaining ground, and in conjunction with some additional
significant changes, it seems to be the harbinger of the endangered end of all
Western civilization. As our own culture has dominated the West for many
decades, the idea that it alone represents the ideal and unique world order has
been consolidated. Prevalent is the belief that the liberal democracy which
after World War II is represented and guarded by the United States
In this
article I will deal with only some of the transversal developments that shook
the Western world, focusing on the economic and regulatory field, which have as
their point of reference the emergence, empowerment and generalization of new
political parties, clearly distinct from the traditional. These are called
"populist" by the panicking traditional politicians.
In Part I of this paper, I will try to outline the basic characteristics of these newly established political parties as well as the main causes of their appearance, while in Part II I will try to highlight the economic form and status of the new world, which is expected to emerge from the prevalence of "populist parties".
In Part I of this paper, I will try to outline the basic characteristics of these newly established political parties as well as the main causes of their appearance, while in Part II I will try to highlight the economic form and status of the new world, which is expected to emerge from the prevalence of "populist parties".
Populism dates back to 1980, and since then has grown steadily, reinforced by globalization, the 2008 crisis, unprecedented large inequalities, rising corruption in political life, mass immigration, and terrorism. Based on a recent Tony Blair Institute survey[6], populist votes in 2000 were, on average, 8.5% in each
What definition would you give to populism? Jan-Werner Müller[8] attempts to answer as follows: It addresses "a morally pure and fully united people, betrayed by select, deeply corrupt, and somewhat morally inferior people."
A.
The causes of populism:
aa) The effects of globalization
A recent
study[9] attributes populism to low growth
rates on a global scale. Naturally, this can be seen as a general but not fully
satisfactory explanation. Because, although there was an anemic growth after
1985, if its distribution had followed regular and not unacceptable forms of
inequality, it would probably not have evolved into populism.
Several
years before the recent and rapid spread of populism, a series of indications
warns of the end of globalization and of entering a new international economic order
with features such as "protectionism", "nationalism",
"controlled borders", "respect for traditions", "interventionism",
"anti-globalization" and so on.
Anti-globalization,
which nourished populism, is the result of the wrath of the losers and the marginalized
because of the consequences of globalization. All of the suffering that has
affected most of humanity, with the predominant problem of uncontrolled
inequality of distribution, income and wealth that haunts the world, has been
attributed to globalization. Thus, when the public realized that globalization
did not keep its initial promise to "ensure the prosperity of all the
inhabitants of Earth", but instead proved to be the system that caused few
winners and piles of losers, it turned directly against it, as evidenced by the
following selected points:
Based on
estimates, around 65% of Europeans are in favor of restricting freedom of
trade, or in other words, in favor of de-globalization. However, the highest
rates dissatisfied with the effects of globalization are to be found in the United States , where 71% of citizens are worried
about job losses due to trade with China ,
while 78% consider America 's
financial dependence on China America Great Britain ,
in favor of Brexit, is certainly the biggest proof of this shift in public
opinion, against globalization, in Europe .
This shift is explained, to a significant extent, by the fact that "the
working class in advanced economies (which largely represented the Brexit
voters) witnessed a very low income increase during the entire long-term period
of globalization[13]". The level of wages, in advanced economies, which had their trade
frontiers open to emerging economies, was almost reduced to that prevailing in
the latter. The effect of globalization on the USA
bb) The rise of nationalism
The general criticism against populist parties, which, however, does not correspond to reality is their collective ranking to the far-right in political terms. Although this criticism, is justified by a small proportion of these parties, it represents however, the easy reaction of all those whose interests are affected by the decline of globalization. The core of this criticism seems to relate to the fact that all these emerging parties raise to the surface the concept of nationalism which had been forgotten, for years, receding under the covert preparations for the advent of a global government[15]. Nationalism is now attempted wrongly, in an arbitrary and unjustifiable way, to be equated with far-right political choices. However, if nationalism is not extreme, in the sense that it encourages hatred for other nations or different races, it is entirely acceptable. Because it is unthinkable to comfortably brand someone belonging to the far-right, who loves his country and is proud of it as a nationalist. The widespread tendency today to collectively dismiss all nationalists as far right and fascists, is suspicious, dangerous and problematic because it obviously conceals unspoken goals. Obviously and unfortunately there is the problem of rising fascism with its abominable and dark activity, especially inEurope . Against
the serpent's eggs, urgent action is needed, but the solution does not lie in
condemning the new political parties, within which the fascist tendencies are,
fortunately, not the norm.
The general criticism against populist parties, which, however, does not correspond to reality is their collective ranking to the far-right in political terms. Although this criticism, is justified by a small proportion of these parties, it represents however, the easy reaction of all those whose interests are affected by the decline of globalization. The core of this criticism seems to relate to the fact that all these emerging parties raise to the surface the concept of nationalism which had been forgotten, for years, receding under the covert preparations for the advent of a global government[15]. Nationalism is now attempted wrongly, in an arbitrary and unjustifiable way, to be equated with far-right political choices. However, if nationalism is not extreme, in the sense that it encourages hatred for other nations or different races, it is entirely acceptable. Because it is unthinkable to comfortably brand someone belonging to the far-right, who loves his country and is proud of it as a nationalist. The widespread tendency today to collectively dismiss all nationalists as far right and fascists, is suspicious, dangerous and problematic because it obviously conceals unspoken goals. Obviously and unfortunately there is the problem of rising fascism with its abominable and dark activity, especially in
Already,
an attempt is made to demote the content of nationalism as it evolves into a
central feature of the new international economic order, as confirmed by the
following statements:
* Lawrence Summers[16] "The political challenge in many countries is the development of a responsible nationalism that rests on a policy that favors local interests and indigenous more and above cosmopolitan aspirations."
* Lawrence Summers[16] "The political challenge in many countries is the development of a responsible nationalism that rests on a policy that favors local interests and indigenous more and above cosmopolitan aspirations."
*
Michael Barone[17]: "Trump and his nationalism with "First America" are not
necessarily bad. Also:" It is good to prefer one's country to
another." "Nationalism can to be a positive force". "Being
proud of one’s homeland and all that is relevant to it is not selfish and
certainly not racist. It is patriotism and a natural reaction for a normal
citizen."
* And social psychologist Jonathan Haidt Haidt[18]:
"Nationalists feel tied to their homeland and are proud to be part of it.
Globalizers want to wipe out the borders of each country and get rid of
democracy."
cc) The
search for greater security
Moreover, the rise of nationalism is due to the widespread desire, in advanced and emerging economies, for more security and less risk, compared to the globalization regime. Satisfying these trends requires a restriction on absolute freedom of trade and a return to market regulation, which has been abolished in the globalization era. It also requires removal from the obsessions of the "invisible hands" of classics, supposedly regulating the market, and, at the same time, reconciliation with the need for state intervention in the economy. The borders, which have been virtually abolished by globalization, are again desirable, as they guarantee greater security. In these choices of the new international economic order, the contribution of the migratory stream, accompanied by many and unresolved aspects, was extremely important.
B.
The dominant features of populist parties:
a) Right and left-hand politics
Populist
political parties belong to both the right and the left, and are distinguished
by numerous differences in their choices. However, their basic characteristics
meet in almost all the so-called "populist parties" and explain why
their appearance in the world has virtually deactivated the distinction between
left and right politics.
At the
moment, and although the relevant scene is constantly changing, as new populist
parties are added to the existing ones, the left wing includes the National
Party of Scotland, Podemos in Spain, Die Linke in Germany, and before being completely
subservient to the demands of lenders, Syriza in Greece. The right side of
populism comprises in turn the second largest political party in Finland, the
third most important political party in Sweden, the party of Viktor Orban,
re-elected for the fourth time in Hungary, the party of the National Front of
Marine Le Pen in France and the Alternative party in Germany, which is expected
to be second in the upcoming next elections. Moreover, the results of the
elections of 4 March 2018 in
Italy turn directly against the "system" and should be expected to
mark the beginning of the end of the EU and, of course, the euro. The
demoralizingly low 18.1% of Matteo Renzi's pro-European party is overwhelmingly
eloquent about the wrath of voters against the European course and its choices.
The
above-mentioned populist governments obviously belong to the United States and
China, both of which present additional features in comparison to the general
ones, are at the top of the global pyramid, and the United States is fighting
to preserve world sovereignty, and China for its acquisition. But, Russia Austria , Bulgaria , Denmark ,
Finland , the Netherlands , Norway
and Latvia
Despite the differences between right-wing and left-wing populist parties as well as hybrids, all of them coincide with several common choices, such as anti-globalization, nationalism, state interventionism, an attempt to achieve prosperity for all, opposition to elitism and the established order, opposition to long-term austerity policies, and opposition to the extreme forms of the stock market economy.
Despite the differences between right-wing and left-wing populist parties as well as hybrids, all of them coincide with several common choices, such as anti-globalization, nationalism, state interventionism, an attempt to achieve prosperity for all, opposition to elitism and the established order, opposition to long-term austerity policies, and opposition to the extreme forms of the stock market economy.
The emerging populism of our
days is directed generally against elitism, traditional politics and dominant
institutions, national and international, in a word against the established
order. Populism represents the ordinary citizen, who thinks that he was
forgotten and betrayed by his politicians. Populism proclaims that it expresses
genuine patriotism. Its proponents are angry at the behavior of politicians and
the general breach of their promises. The vote for Donald Trump is interpreted
as a voter's desire to leave behind the bad political past of globalization.
Apart from the convergence of the two populist political movements on most important goals, it is interesting to note that, in particular, the right-wing populist side has broken its relations with traditional assumptions of its faction, such as the opposition towards state intervention in the economy, as well as the belief in continued austerity. The choice of Donald Trump, as well as of several other European politicians close to power, is based precisely on their promises to abandon globalization, in favor of protectionism, as well as the abandonment of dogmatic neo-liberalism.
Apart from the convergence of the two populist political movements on most important goals, it is interesting to note that, in particular, the right-wing populist side has broken its relations with traditional assumptions of its faction, such as the opposition towards state intervention in the economy, as well as the belief in continued austerity. The choice of Donald Trump, as well as of several other European politicians close to power, is based precisely on their promises to abandon globalization, in favor of protectionism, as well as the abandonment of dogmatic neo-liberalism.
bb) The
differences in the preferences between right-wing and left-wing populist parties
The pair of choices of the new international economic order, as proclaimed at least, appears under a seemingly new label: open and closed borders. This is certainly not a new distinction, but merely a verbal evolution of the ever-existing divide between the status of freedom of international trade and that of protectionism, or even more recently, between globalization and border nationalism. Although the continuation of the traditional distinction between deregulation and regulation of international trade, even under different titles, seems to face no problems, these do emerge however, since attempts are made to classify their individual choices into the two traditional political parties, right and left. Indeed, there is a prevalent view that the traditional right is attached to economic liberalism and to all the individual terms that follow it, such as the liberalization of international trade, the free movement of capital and labor, the non-intervention of the state in the economy, minimizing the tax burden, as well as the abolition of the welfare state. And there is the additional hostility to mass immigration. On the contrary, the main features of the traditional left have so far been the acceptance of the role and importance of state interventionism, extending to the regulation of international trade conditions, the recognition of the advantages of cooperation and complementarity between the public and private sectors, considered to be of equal importance , paying special attention to the welfare state services, the establishment of labor rights, recognized as the weakest factor of production, in relation to capital, as well as the imposition of progressive taxation, which aims at a fairer distribution of income. Supplementary but less secure discrimination between the left and the right concerns the area of economic policy choices. The right, which is recognized as the most conservative, generally seeks to achieve balance everywhere. Its relations with microeconomic policy, which regulates and encourages private initiative, is more visible and narrower, while being less clear with macroeconomic policy. This explains the attachment of the right to austerity policies, but also the preference for monetary policy, with the exclusion of fiscal policy.
However,
the above-mentioned indicative distinctions and economic policy preferences
have recently been overturned. Apart from the clear opposition to the
continuation of globalization, this new hybrid form of political parties, some
of which are close to power, is an unsafe and unstable amalgam of piecemeal
traditional economic policy preferences, both left and right. Hence the
difficulty of classifying them as left or right wing. This is why the argument,
put forward by various sides, is reinforced that the distinction between right
and left no longer exists, at least in
its traditional form.
Despite
these obvious difficulties of ranking the populist parties to the right or to
the left, their decisive common element is their intense hostility to open
borders. It is precisely this hostility, which has proved to be a powerful
weapon for attracting supporters, from the newly established political parties
in Europe , and not only. The increasingly
rising number of voters from these parties, characterized by their political
opponents as pro-conservative and anachronistic, is opposed to the continuation
of the liberalization of international trade or the reception of refugees /
immigrants on their territory, or as a rule against both of these policies
belonging to the policy of open borders. The followers of these political
parties are convinced, not always for the same reasons, that the opening of
borders, either to products or to people, is detrimental to the national
economy and its inhabitants, and that is why they are also seen as nationalist
parties .
cc)
Concerns about the rise of "populist parties"
The rise of populist political parties can be explained by the "diversity" of the positions they express and support, compared to the positions of those who have been in power for the past fifty years and which are generally rejected by an increasing proportion of the world’s inhabitants.
That is why these new political parties also pose a clear risk to traditional politicians, who view them with surprise, discomfort and panic, as they threaten their multifaceted and strongly vested interests.
The
criticism of traditional politicians against the populist parties, focuses
mainly on the fundamental issue of the current government, which is likely to
be overthrown and less on the individual economic policy measures. Indeed, a
significant part of the European population, and not only, already states with
no hesitation that it does not perceive the regime of "liberal
democracy" as a unique or undisputedly optimum form of governance of the
contemporary world economies. It is a reality for Europe
that the traditional right-wing and left-wing political parties are rapidly
shrinking significantly, gradually giving their place to new political parties,
which are anti-European and favor the re-establishment of the nation-state.
This has also happened in France
and Germany Europe
and causing her to look for ways of survival which, for the time being cannot
be considered as successful. These European citizens, collectively and
contemptuously called "populists," have separated their choices from
those recognized as orthodox within the EU and falling within the broad area of
"Liberal Democracy".
The
European "populists" are seemingly convinced that the EU is deeply
confused when applying policies that are sure to destroy it, such as the
admission to its territories of mass immigration and the abandonment of
national sovereignty and patriotism, history and national traditions. The
abandonment in other words, of the national identity of the individual
nation-states. The EU monitors with resentment and also growing concern the
rapid spread of populists on its territory, but has not yet been self-critical
about how and why its basic guidelines are being abandoned by an increasing
number of its citizens. At this point it is very important to note that the
European "populists" are not alone in their actual refusal of being
wiped out and accepting a global governance at a later date, as everything
seems to point in that direction within the EU. This is obviously how we should
interpret this wave of reclaiming and rescuing the national identity which,
with many variations in its details, has invaded not only Europe
but the world as a whole. This refers to Donald Trump’s America , Putin's Russia ,
Xi Jinping’s China
Ending Part I of this paper, the general conclusion that emerges from the above analysis is the stormy change of regimes in Europe and the world that jeopardizes the maintenance of Liberal Democracy but at the same time also comprises the innovations in economic, political and social life which modern societies are in vital need of, in order to be able to give new solutions to their numerous and thorny problems.
Ending Part I of this paper, the general conclusion that emerges from the above analysis is the stormy change of regimes in Europe and the world that jeopardizes the maintenance of Liberal Democracy but at the same time also comprises the innovations in economic, political and social life which modern societies are in vital need of, in order to be able to give new solutions to their numerous and thorny problems.
Part II. The new face of advanced
economies
The content of this Part II refers to the future economic and political conditions that will be incorporated into future societies. Dealing with future predictions necessarily involves a high risk of discrediting them. However, this content of Part II, I believe, for the most part, has a high probability for realization, precisely because the twists and turns it refers to have already begun and are progressing without being hampered in their course.
Although, for the moment, there is dense smoke around the form, which will eventually be taken by individual national economies, as the elements comprising the international scene are still in progress, one thing is certain: globalization is limiting its scope and nothing will ever be the same again.
The
expected changes will be summarized, first of all, in their economic dimension,
paragraph A, and secondly in their political status, paragraph B.
A.
In the economic sphere:
(aa) National economies
The end
of globalization and the establishment of protectionism currently seem to be accelerating due to the choices of the
new US
Already every national economy suffers the consequences of its return to reality, its possibilities and its weaknesses. It is guarded by the application of protective measures on its trade, but it also suffers from the consequences of a raging commercial war, which however has not yet acquired its final form.
Already every national economy suffers the consequences of its return to reality, its possibilities and its weaknesses. It is guarded by the application of protective measures on its trade, but it also suffers from the consequences of a raging commercial war, which however has not yet acquired its final form.
Anti-globalization
is the product of the reaction of the weakest of the planet, especially those
who have been deprived of jobs because of the liberalization of international
trade, or have suffered a deterioration in their standard of living due to wage
competition by immigrants / refugees. That is why there is hope, thanks to the
new international economic order, to reverse the unfavorable effect of
globalization, which consisted of few winners and numerous losers. It is also
hoped that the positive consequences of this overthrow will counteract the
negative effects of the commercial war. Thus, anti-globalization, does not attempt
to be imposed as a one-way solution or as a paradise like its predecessor, but
merely appears on the international scene as a need to reduce the widespread
and multidimensional calamities of globalization.
B.
Statutory change / governance
a) The
Postwar
In addition to the high standard of living
characterizing post-war economies with liberal Democracy, the latter also
presented three enviable conditions[19]:
* relative equity
* relative equity
* fast - growing income for all citizens,
and
* the fact that countries with
non-democratic status were generally less prosperous.
Until the recent election of Donald Trump, western civilization did not recognize any other regime apart from that of liberal democracy which it tried to impose on the whole planet, even resorting to war. Indeed, one of the basic excuses put forward by Bush jr. for the unjustified wars againstIraq , Afghanistan
Until the recent election of Donald Trump, western civilization did not recognize any other regime apart from that of liberal democracy which it tried to impose on the whole planet, even resorting to war. Indeed, one of the basic excuses put forward by Bush jr. for the unjustified wars against
All
these foundations and
advantages for the perpetuation and imitation of democracy by non-democratic
countries however, have been eroded. And the most important thing is that, it
turns out beyond any doubt, that the regimes considered as authoritarian
achieve faster growth rates than democracies. Indeed, out of the 15 economies
world economies now showing the fastest growth rates, 2/3 do not have liberal
democratic regimes[20]. In addition, out of the 250 best
universities in the world, 16 belong to non-liberal democratic countries[21].
The change brought on by Donald Trump's new international financial order is very important, although it has so far gone unnoticed. The new president, according to all indications, seems to have forsaken the right or more correctly the obligation of theUS America
The change brought on by Donald Trump's new international financial order is very important, although it has so far gone unnoticed. The new president, according to all indications, seems to have forsaken the right or more correctly the obligation of the
b) The
new regime under populist political parties
The impossibility of imposing democracy on countries that do not want it has been fully understood with the economic rise of
c) The
decline of Liberal Democracy
Sadly, the liberal democratic regime of the West is in great decline. And the simple invocation of democracy, when it coexists with completely incompatible consequences, is not enough to satisfy relevant concerns. I have the increasingly strong feeling that references to democracy are being used as a form of diversion for a series of daily crimes performed in her name. And I ultimately believe that the guarantees given through the simple reference to Democracy only serve as a form of reassurance and resignation from trying to find solutions to difficult problems. Thus, they often end up in unacceptable situations. Situations, which ultimately do not differ from those corresponding to authoritarian regimes, which do not invoke democracy. Let me emphasize, on this point, that even the citizens of countries with democratic regimes do not have enough confidence in them. Relevant research in
The
question here is whether this coexistence of capitalism with an illiberal
democracy is viable and therefore sustainable on a long-term basis, or whether
the conflicts inherent in this combination will lead to its dissolution,
reverting to capitalism with liberal Democracy or socialism. Opinions differ on
this very crucial point for the future of the West and the world. Those whom I
would describe as optimistic argue that authoritarian regimes can only survive
in poor economies, such as China, Russia or even Turkey, while on the other
hand, when per capita income increases and the middle class dominates, citizens
will demand political liberalism. Although according to this view capitalism,
in the long run, eliminates totalitarianism, it is not possible to determine in
advance the exact timing of such a development. However, it is certain that
political liberalism will ultimately prevail, due to contradictions and
dysfunctions of totalitarian capitalism, such as corruption, inequality of
distribution, inadequate information, lack of individual freedoms, or the
exploitation of governmental power to
ensure that politicians enjoy a privileged existence. This category of
optimists is nevertheless forced to admit, that these disadvantages and
dysfunctions are also present in capitalism with liberal democracy, but they
convince themselves that what makes the difference in favor of liberalism is
that, according to them, these negative effects are present on a smaller scale.
Unfortunately, serious drawbacks and dysfunctions, are encountered on an increasing
scale and intensity in the economies of the West. And it is difficult, if not
impossible, to decide in which of these two regimes the dysfunctions and
negative features are more intense. But it is equally difficult to answer
whether or not there will continue to be differences between these two regimes,
and if so, which of them will prevail.
Austria and Finland
One of
the key arguments of the West in relation to its conviction that it will be
able to maintain its political status after China's international dominance, is
that in the world of the twenty-first century power is passed through
globalization and international organizations, controlled by the West itself[25]. This argument, however, has been greatly weakened by the severe blows
that globalization is taking with the introduction of protectionism and the
accusations Donald Trump has launched against international organizations and
the established economic order as a whole. This argument has also lost much of
its original glamor due to the rise of populism, which expresses the change of
public opinion and which turns directly against globalization and the system
prevailing in the West, in general. Now, concerning the influence and scope of
the "populist governments" in Europe
which has been invaded by them, regardless of the fact that it still seems to
be ignoring them, and pretends to still reign on the foundation of liberal
democracy. This is now clearly utopian, given that Britain
has left the European group and Italy
Conclusion
The question which needs to be answered is whether Liberal Democracy or regimes regarded
as authoritarina will prevail[26]. Nowadays with the constant threat of perpetual stagnation, the answer to
the above question should above all investigate which of the two systems is
most effective:
·
In
achieving rapid growth.
·
in
fighting corruption
·
in
achieving the most equitable distribution of income and wealth
·
in
ensuring full employment
·
in
relation to the quality of public health and public education services
·
in the protection of dietary risks
·
in
imposing meritocracy.
Although
the answers to these concerns are neither easy nor
obvious at least for the moment, the inevitable reflection around them uncovers
a reality that the “non-populists” of the West refuse to accept: that the issue
is not so simple, nor its solutions so obvious as they misleadingly appear but
that, on the contrary, constant critical and objective monitoring of the
relevant developments is required. And that furthermore, researchers who focus
on this huge problem are neither traitors, nor right-wingers, nor nostalgic of
dictatorial regimes, nor communists.
In any case, account should be taken of
the fact that populists appear to be the product of a radical change in voter
preferences, especially among young people. Indeed, while among the older
Americans, 2/3 declare their preference for Democracy, less than 1/3 of the
young people care about it, while they are favorable to the idea of a
totalitarian regime and strongly critical of democracy[27]. Let me add that two decades before
today, 25% of the British were favorable to the idea of an authoritarian
government, and they have now reached 50%. In countries like Germany , England
and the United States , the
percentage of young people who favor a right or left extreme has doubled in the
last two decades, while in Sweden Hungary , Austria ,
Greece and Finland
*** For a more extensive analysis of this topic, Maria Negreponti-Delivanis, The end of the economic dominance of the West, under publication: a) in Greek, IANOS and b) in French L'Harmattan
*** For a more extensive analysis of this topic, Maria Negreponti-Delivanis, The end of the economic dominance of the West, under publication: a) in Greek, IANOS and b) in French L'Harmattan
Selected
References
* Briefing
European Populism (2018), The Economist, 03/02
* Deudney, Daniel and G. John Ikenberry (2009) "The myth
of the autocratic Revival", Foreign Affairs, January/February
*Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή - Frans Timmermans and Jyrki Katainen (2017) " Paper
on reducing globalization" COM(2017) 240, 10/05
*"European populism-Threat and opportunity" (2018), The
Economist, 03/02
* Hansen, Alvin
* Lenglet, Francois,
(2014), La fin de mondialisation, Librairie Arhème Fayard/Pluriel,
Chapitre 5-L’éternel retour
* Mattews, Jessica Tuchman, Andrew Kohut and Stapleton Roy (2012) “US
Public, Experts Differ on China Policies” Pew Research
Center-septembre
*Mounk Yasha (2018), "How populist
uprisings could bring down liberal democracy", The Guardian, Sun 4
Mars 07/05 GMT
* Mounk, Yascha (2018) "The
people vs democracy", Harvard University Press
* Mounk, Yasha and Roberto Stefan Foa
(2018), "The End of the democratic Century", Foreign Affairs, May-June,
pp 29-36
* Muller, Jan-Werner (2018), "The trouble with illiberal
democracy", International New York Times, 06/04
*[1] National Review (http: //www.nationalreview.com/article/438915/donald-trumps-nationalism-not
bringing-nazism-america
*Negreponti-Delivani Maria
(2014), The Cold Blooded Murder of Greece
*Spengler, Oswald, (1918) The decline of the West, Editor Alfred. A. Knopf , N.Y.
*Summers, Lawrence
* Scott, Robert (2017), "Brexit:The end of
globalization as we know it?" ΅Working Economics Blog-posted June 28 2016 at 12:26 pm
*Survey Monkey
[1] François
Lenglet (2014), La fin de mondialisation, Librairie Arhème
Fayard/Pluriel, Chapitre 5-L’éternel retour
[3] The western
civilization was born from the ashes of the ancient Greek civilization, with
the emergence after 1860, of the economic centres of Australia ,
G. Britain and USA
[6] Yasha Mounk
(2018), "How populist uprisings could bring down liberal democracy", The
Guardian, Sun 4 Mars 07/05 GMT
[10]Jessica
Tuchman Mattews, Andrew Kohut and Stapleton Roy (2012) “US Public, Experts Differ
on China Policies” Pew Research Center-septembre
[13] Robert
Scott (2017), "Brexit:The end of globalization as we know it?" ΅Working Economics Blog-posted June 28 2016 at 12:26 pm
[15] Negreponti-Delivani
Maria (2014), The Cold Blooded Murder of Greece
[17] National
Review (http: //www.nationalreview.com/article/438915/donald-trumps-nationalism-not
bringing-nazism-america)
[19] Yasha Mounk
and Roberto Stefan Foa (2018), "The End of the democratic Century", Foreign
Affairs, Μάιος/ Ιούνιος, σσ 29-36
[23] According to
the definition by Fareed Zakaria, Jan-Werner
Muller (2018), "The trouble with illiberal democracy", International
New York Times, 06/04
[26] Daniel
Deudney and G. John Ikenberry (2009) "The myth of the autocratic
Revival", Foreign Affairs, Ιανουάριος/ Φεβρουάριος
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια