Mediaboss Marketing

In the past two weeks, we witnessed two historic electoral events. On April 16, Turkey voted to grant its president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, near-absolute power, and on April 23, France voted to send the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen to the final runoff for president, with the final election between Le Pen and centrist Emmanuel Macron set for May 7.

These two events continue a disturbing trend of leaders who espouse authoritarian platforms winning in popular elections across the globe.

Pundits are framing these events as indicators of a debate around globalization, with people such as Le Pen who leads the National Front, a party with a deep history of fascist and anti-Semitic positions, and who as recently as two weeks ago seemed to downplay Frances role in the holocaust leading a populist wave against entrenched globalists. Unfortunately, this framing is incomplete and misleading.

There is no question that people across the globe are wrestling with the costs and benefits of globalization; however, the underlying argument that is driving recent events is over whether democracy or authoritarianism is better suited to create economic opportunity and provide security.

Turkeys descent into authoritarianism is illustrative of the global trend.

Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party, or AKP, were first elected into power in 2002 as reformers, intent on continuing Turkeys integration with Europe while cleaning up government and restoring economic growth. Though negotiations with Europe stalled after a few years, Erdogan (as prime minister) successfully managed to drive growth, with the economy growing around 7 percent a year from 2002 to 2007.

In the early years, Erdogan also strengthened civil rights and reduced the role of the military in civilian life (notable in a country where the military habitually overthrew any civilian government that it felt strayed too far from Turkeys secular customs).

Yet by 2010, signs emerged of a shifting landscape. That year, Turkey voted to adopt a referendum put forth by Erdogan and the AKP. The referendum contained many constitutional changes that had widespread support, such as measures to expand protections for women and children; but the referendum also granted the AKP significant power to shape the judiciary branch, weakening a check on the AKPs (and Erdogans) power. The referendum passed with 58 percent of the vote, demonstrating the depth of Erdogans personal support; but the vote pattern previewed splits in the country that would deepen in the ensuing years, with deep pockets of voters in major urban areas rejecting the referendum.

Since 2010, Turkey has been buffeted by the Syrian civil war and broader regional conflict, a slowing economy (annual GDP growth dropped below 5 percent), numerous deadly terrorist attacks and severe internal political division.

As the economy slowed and political opposition intensified with massive street protests against Erdogan and the AKP in 2013 Erdogan intensified his attacks and began arresting anyone who spoke out against him (Turkey currently jails the highest-number of journalists in the world).

This internal strife culminated in an attempted coup in July 2016. After surviving the attempt, Erdogan declared a state of emergency and arrested tens of thousands of people.

It was during this state of emergency, with thousands of citizens still in jail or under surveillance, that Turkey went to the polls to decide whether to grant Erdogan even more expansive powers. The referendum passed on April 16 of this year with 51.4 percent of the vote. As a result, Turkey will officially move from a parliamentary system to a presidential system, with power centralized in President Erdogan (he was elected president in 2014).

Erdogan will also be able to stand for election potentially two more times, extending his reign for another decade.

We could write off Turkeys turn to authoritarianism as a symptom of the regions instability. Similarly, if France chooses Macron over Le Pen on May 7, we could shrug off Le Pens campaign as an anomaly fueled by Europes refugee crisis or stagnant economic growth. But to do so would only allow authoritarianism to continue its spread unabated.

Instead we should see these events for what they are authoritarian forces capitalizing on deep-seated anxiety and uncertainty to seize power.

If we acknowledge what these events signify, then we can act. The authoritarians playbook is simple and clear. Authoritarians blame clearly identifiable others as the cause of a nations problems and call for restoring national glory. They coerce, bribe or co-opt media outlets into spreading propaganda. They use every lever possible to turn anxiety into fear and fear into anger.

It is not a particularly nuanced strategy, but it does not require a sophisticated effort to secure victory when those who champion democracy remain in denial about what is happening.

Our actions can begin at home. The stronger we make our democracy, the more powerfully we will be able to refute authoritarian efforts abroad. To this end, we can look at our own politics and ask if we are advancing efforts that will expand engagement in our democratic process.

Are we seeking out those who feel left out and finding ways to connect? Are we asking each other to serve a greater good through meaningful civic participation? As we strengthen our democracy, we will inoculate ourselves against authoritarianisms subterfuge. We will also exemplify for the world why democracy, however complicated, slow-moving and contentious, remains the surest way to lift up all people and secure lasting peace.

(Dan Vallone is a West Point graduate who served six years on active duty as an infantry officer. He lives in Concord.)

More:
My Turn: As the light of one democracy goes out, another begins to flicker - Concord Monitor