We are in a time where leaders with ambitions akin to Julius Caesar are emerging.
Look at the leadership styles of Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Viktor Orban of Hungary, Narendra Modi of India, Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, the former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, and the former U.S. President Donald Trump. Each was chosen through democratic processes within their countries, which possess different levels of liberty and impartiality. All of them have utilized their governmental power to maintain their hold on authority. While varying in effectiveness, each leader has contributed to the decline of the democratic systems that enabled their rise to power. Ferdinand Mount's "Big Caesars and Little Caesars" explores this trend of aspiring autocrats, and it is a fascinating read. Using a British term I learned on my recent trip to London, Mount is often described as a "wet Tory," blending traditional establishment principles with more progressive political views. His education includes time at Eton and Christ Church College, University of Oxford. He has a family baronetcy, which notably links him to his first cousin once removed, the former Prime Minister of the U.K., David Cameron. Mount led the Policy Unit under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s but later distanced himself from the emotional Thatcherite ideology. He then served as the editor of the Times Literary Supplement in the 1990s, and more recently, he has been contributing to publications like the Daily Telegraph and the London Review of Books. The opening lines of his book resonated with me and the time we are living in, particularly as we are getting ready for elections in the U.S., which is less than ten months away: "Caesars have returned, both grand and modest, in nations large and small, in societies both advanced and developing." Beginning with that creative and Seuss-like introduction, The book delves into the concept of Caesarism and the role of Caesars in politics, examining the factors that contribute to their rise and fall. Caesar aspires to dictatorial power to dismantle existing structures and position themselves as the sole arbiter of law. The book differentiates between 'Big Caesars' and 'Little Caesars' based on their ambitions and the extent of their success. In Mount's view, 'Big Caesars' are described by their endless acts of violence, law-breaking, and deception, whereas 'little Caesars' define their manipulations as what is required to fulfill their personal goals. I think the subtitle of the book, "How They Rise and How They Fall—from Julius Caesar to Boris Johnson," hints at a potential issue right from the start: the book blends discussions of dictators like Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler with figures such as Boris Johnson, the former British Prime Minister. Most are quintessential 'Big Caesars,' whereas Johnson seems more appropriately categorized as a 'little Caesar.' However, the book adeptly handles this disparity. All types of Caesars share common strategies and tactics, big and small. They all operate on a similar continuum. The book features chapters on events like the 1820 Cato Street Conspiracy, where a group of radical activists unsuccessfully plotted to decapitate the entire British cabinet, and the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch in Munich, where Hitler and his nascent Nazi Party attempted a forceful overthrow of the Weimar Republic. These events show how figures, initially dismissed as insignificant dictators, can evolve into more formidable threats. The book also examines instances of 'little' Caesarism that have had profound impacts, such as Indira Gandhi's declaration of a state of emergency in India from 1975 to 1977. This period was marked by drastic measures like mass arrests and forced sterilizations, overseen by Gandhi's son Sanjay as part of a population control initiative. Mount argues that Gandhi's actions not only had immediate harmful consequences but also set a dangerous precedent for future leaders like Modi to follow. Regarding Hitler, history unfolded in a cyclical pattern, initially as a farce and subsequently as a tragedy. His unsuccessful and unlawful coup attempt led to a trial that garnered significant public interest. Following a pardon from his prison sentence, Hitler adopted a multifaceted approach to gain power. He blended electoral victories with acts of street violence, using the latter to intimidate rival political parties. It's essential to recall how strikingly history can echo itself, mainly because Donald Trump, currently leading in the race for the 2024 Republican Party presidential nomination, is aiming to make a comeback to the White House. The book illustrates that aspirant Caesars depend greatly on propaganda's power to overshadow factual historical accounts. These leaders craft compelling narratives that appeal to their supporters and the crucial elite they must win over to gain control. With time and the influence of propaganda, the harsh realities are smoothed over. The brutal tactics used in their rise to power are often rationalized as unavoidable necessities. Occasionally, Caesars shaped their narratives through their writings, as seen with Napoleon's dispatches from battlefields or Hitler's "Mein Kampf." For those Caesars who need to be more skilled in crafting words, there's always the option to delegate the storytelling to sympathetic publicists. In the shadow of every aspiring Caesar, there's often a harmful sycophant ready to pen their version of a "Flight 93 Election" essay. Such writings argue that the political landscape is so critical that using extreme tactics, emergency actions, and dubious alliances is justifiable to seize power. I think a standout feature of "Big Caesars and Little Caesars" is its significant focus on the downfall of these leaders. The book suggests that a blend of law enforcement, intelligence, eloquence, adherence to lawfulness, and public officials' diligence is critical to these aspiring Caesars' eventual downfall. The emphasis on their decline and fall is significant, given the influence of propaganda. Such an examination helps prevent ordinary citizens from overestimating the political strength of these leaders. For instance, Donald Trump and his followers often portray the Make America Great Again (M.A.G.A.) movement as an unstoppable juggernaut. However, this narrative overlooks several critical facts. In 2016, Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes; in 2020, his loss in the popular vote was more than twice that margin. Since Trump's emergence on the national political scene, the two midterm elections have resulted in significant setbacks for the Republican Party. Currently, Trump is facing four criminal indictments, with many of his associates and subordinates also facing legal proceedings. Highlighting how such aspiring Caesars are eventually removed from the political arena is vital to dispelling the myth of their inevitable, enduring triumph. After reading the book, shortcomings hinder Mount's ability to improve since readers in the presentation of his book. The most noticeable is his thinly veiled disdain for Boris Johnson, almost like he wishes to destroy him intellectually. Johnson's involvement in advocating for and ultimately achieving Brexit is a significant point of frustration for Mount, as are the numerous other minor scandals and missteps in Johnson's official capacity. Johnson's victories in the 2016 Brexit referendum and the 2019 general election democratically entitled him to make significant policy errors. However, the book strongly disagrees with this perspective. The author criticizes the pro-Brexit campaign as a blend of nationalism and what he terms "cakeism" – the notion promoted by Johnson that Britons could enjoy the benefits of Brexit without any drawbacks. Regarding Johnson's 2019 electoral victory, the book poses a critical yet valid question: "Was it truly a remarkable achievement to defeat a Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn decisively?" While the book raises some relevant points, it is marred by its overly intense scrutiny of the 'little Caesar' known for his messy hair. Mount even goes so far as to assert that "no departure in British political history has been more humiliating" than Johnson's exit from No. 10 Downing Street in September 2022 amidst a scandal. Johnson's departure lacked grace, yet to label it as the most humiliating is quite exaggerated. He was succeeded by Liz Truss, whose tenure as Prime Minister was marked by significant policy and political turmoil, lasting only 49 tumultuous days — the briefest in British history. Interestingly, Mount acknowledges Truss's short-lived premiership just a page after his assertion about Johnson's exit, which casts doubt on either his or his editor's attention to recent events. Mount asserts that Trump's initial travel ban targeted "immigrants from most Muslim nations." While the executive order was discriminatory and counterproductive, it only affected seven countries, far fewer than the 57 member states in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Mount argues that the uniqueness of Trump's presidency lay in his relentless campaigning and tumultuous governance, seemingly overlooking the parallels with Andrew Jackson's approach to ascending the presidency in the 19th century. Mount overlooks the significance of Trump's recent promise to dismiss numerous executive branch officials. While it's possible that no U.S. Congress would enact legislation to support this, that's beside the point. As president, Trump demonstrated a significant capacity to bypass the civil service, sparking widespread debate in Washington about the consequences. The seriousness of this threat is underscored by the Biden administration's measures to prevent future presidents from efficiently implementing Trump's proposals. Mount's understanding of the worldwide Caesar phenomenon is still being determined. He suggests that Johnson and Trump uniquely centered their antagonism on immigration, overlooking the ways Hungary's Orban and Turkey's Erdogan used refugee fears to strengthen their political power. Furthermore, Mount's assertion that "modern Caesarism has been largely overlooked by scholars" reveals a lack of awareness of political science research trends. In the last ten years, there has been a growing emphasis among social scientists on the influence of individual leaders in global politics. Additionally, the rise of populist nationalism has seen a significant increase in research, especially following the rise of Trump and Brexit. I think Mount's book lacks an entry on "populism," which could be why he believes modern Caesars have been overlooked. While Mount focuses on the leaders of these movements and their ascent to power, political scientists are more concerned with the movements and their root causes. Essentially, they are examining the same issue but from slightly different perspectives. Mount notes that "Caesars gain popularity primarily by boosting national morale, not by enhancing living standards" and that a "new Caesar quickly establishes a division between Us and Them." Both points are fundamental concepts in the study of populism. Nonetheless, there is merit in examining the Caesars themselves, as populist leaders frequently exhibit unique psychological traits. As I wrapped up my short trip to London and finished reading the book, it offered valuable insights for those curious about how someone like Boris Johnson could have played a key role in what might be considered Great Britain's most significant foreign policy blunder.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRoozbeh, born in Tehran - Iran (March 1984) Archives
December 2024
Categories |