“Talking to (him) that day, and (him) and the other Talibs, it seemed obvious enough that what lay at the foundation of the Taliban’s rule was fear, but not fear of the Taliban themselves, at least not in the beginning. No; it was fear of the past. Fear that the past would return, that it would come back in all its disaggregated fury. That the past would become the future. The beards, the burqas, the whips, the stones; anything, anything you want. Anything but the past” — Dexter Filkins, The Forever War

Memories of War

To understand war, it must be felt. Missiles slamming into dilapidated buildings. Cracks from snipers hidden amongst the wreckage of elementary school classrooms. Spines intact beside dirt roads stretching endlessly into the clouds. Wailing.

Analyses written in third person for the Times that are filled with statistics, while accurate in the abstract, could not do less to convey the truth on the cratered floor of war. Few journalists understand the centrality of capturing tragedy better than Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times Journalist Dexter Filkins. In his 2008 collection of memoirs, exploring his time in Afghanistan and Iraq, Filkins omits all political and historical context in favor of scenes, bound together without regard for chronology. As if the chaos of war itself has scrambled the conventional timeline, the visceral memories break and burst at the seams of the readers’ Western mundanity. “Your days may die, but your dreams explode,” Filkins writes when back stateside, “Not with any specific recollections; they were more the by-products of the raw materials I carried back. Rarely anything I ever actually saw.”

Filkins recounts his many adventures living in compounds and journeying out in Humvees alongside Bravo Team Marines. In one scene, the author conjures the streets of Falluja during an American counterinsurgency operation. “My face! My face!” yells Jake Knospler, only a kid from Pennsylvania. His jaw had been blown off by an insurgent grenade. Soldiers collapsing by Filkins’ side. Bullets whizzing past his ears.

America’s decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq was supposedly driven by a belief in abstract principles. Democracy. Liberty. What Bush failed to recognize, or at the very least visualize, is that the implementation of abstractions requires physical actions. The same blood is spilt regardless of why bullets have been shot. Bullets do not care for morals. Referencing the lack of Arabic fluency amongst American soldiers, Filkins observes that “for many Iraqis the typical 19 year old army corporal from South Dakota was not a youthful innocent carrying Americas good will, he was a terrifying combination of firepower and ignorance.” From the perspective of an Iraqi, who had dozens of their family members killed by American arms, it is difficult to believe those same men brought liberation.

No capital expenditure on infrastructure can justify foreign occupation. In most cases, true liberation must come from within. Americans, together with their NATO allies, may have freed Iraqis from Saddam’s brutal regime, notorious for barbarous torture. But their invasion replaced one form of hell with another. The emergence of sectarian terrorist groups was not inevitable. Contrary to far-right opinion, Islam does not condone Al-Qaeda’s violence. The origin and staying power of fundamentalist organizations are tied directly to American policy. Filkins illustrates the inferno and chaos that settle upon the Iraqi desert and in the urban center of Baghdad, once a wonder of the Ancient world. Car bombs and kidnappings dominate the lives of the average citizen, while foreigners and government officials recede into armored layers, away from the violence, away from the world.

Again?

As I write, American and Israeli missiles hit cities across Iran, destroying military capabilities at the expense of civilian lives. Just beneath the voices of officials justifying war in the Middle East with a nuclear program, I hear echoes of President Bush speaking to the nation. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction threatened the free world. It was our responsibility to wipe them out.

There were no nuclear weapons in Iraq in 2003. There aren’t any in Iran in 2026. We are waging a war, killing thousands after having repeatedly rejected Iranian proposals for a renewed nuclear agreement. Strikes were not inevitable. America chose to put its own service members in harm’s way. America chose to upend the global economy. America chose to enter into another entanglement in a region that many top officials do not understand. It is not too late to prevent another ground invasion where thousands of Americans could lose their lives. Iran is not yet Iraq. The Forever War illustrates why we should ensure it doesn’t become another.

Iranians are not yearning for empty slogans, personality cults, or even lofty notions of democracy. What they desire most is a well-managed, accountable government that can restore economic dignity and allow them to live a zendegi-e normal—a “normal life” free from the suffocating grip of a state that polices what they wear, what they watch, how they love, whom they worship, and even what they eat and drink. — Karim Sadjadpour

Introduction

Forty-seven years have passed since Ayatollah Khomenei, returning from fifteen years in exile, disembarked from his Air France flight from Paris. “Our final victory will come when all foreigners are out of the country…I beg God to cut off the hands of all evil foreigners and all their helpers,” the founder of Iran’s Islamic Republic would preach to gathered crowds.1 Four decades later, the greatest threat to his theocratic project is not a CIA-supported coup but his own suffering compatriots. In a nation whose politics and broader sense of self have been defined by justified paranoia oriented towards the West, Iranians themselves now appear set to topple Khamenei’s repressive regime.

As the once formidable theocratic government in Iran crumbles, the nation appears to be on the cusp of political upheaval. Militarily incapacitated by Israeli and American missiles, geopolitically isolated by the collapse of regional allies, and under pressure domestically from a wave of protests emerging across major urban centers, the Islamic Republic is struggling to sustain itself.2 From the ashes of a Mullah-ruled Iran, may just emerge a nation willing to collaborate with the West to stabilize the Middle East.

Protests

Economic difficulties have massacred the clerics’ remaining legitimacy. Annual inflation exceeding 40% alongside the catastrophic devaluation of the Iranian Rial has put pressure on citizens already suffering from crippling Western sanctions. For years, youth unemployment, currently sitting around 24.3%, has been rising, as disillusioned young people turn to illicit means to sustain themselves.3 Their demonstrations on university campuses and in city centers have catalyzed large segments of the public—even many from the low-income conservative base and the urban middle class have taken up slogans.

Protesters have moved beyond economic grievances and seized the opportunity to express broader anti-government sentiment. “For years now, we have slowly but surely made significant changes to our lifestyles because of this corrupt government. This was the last nail in the coffin. We wanted this regime gone, and now there’s no way this regime will continue,” says a shopkeeper in Tehran.4 Power shortages have become endemic. The cost of living has outpaced wage growth for years. Food scarcity and drought have become the norm. A government diverting funds to its military to prepare for external threats has weakened its domestic defenses: welfare programs.5 Now, confronted with unrest, the clerics have replaced subsidies with bullets. According to Amnesty International, at least 28 protesters and bystanders have been killed.6 The real death toll is most likely much higher. Iranians and the world hold their breath: what’s next for the nation of 92 million?

Forward?

The Islamic Republic marks only a blip in the 2,500-year history of Persian civilization, a history with only brief periods of parliamentary democracy. The likelihood that Iran’s theocracy will fall and be replaced by a liberal-democratic system is at best very unlikely. Iran has never had a democratically elected head of state. An inclination towards a strongman is natural when surrounded by incessant instability. The opposition figure, whose name echoes in Iranian streets and adorns picket signs, promises to prolong that autocratic legacy. Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last American-backed Shah, has been rallying the masses from the safety of his D.C. residence. On his Instagram (@pahlavicomms), the crown prince calls on members of the armed forces to take up arms against the government to “protect [their] and [their] families’ future.”7

If, in place of the Shah, the IRGC, the regime’s revolutionary military force, attempts to consolidate its power, Iran may transition to the Pakistani model. Karim Sadjadpour, writer for Foreign Affairs magazine and senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, argues that IRGC generals could replace Islamism with a brand of UltraNationalism, while remaining domestically repressive and hostile to the West.8 This new brand of leaders would use nationalism to pacify the populace while retaining a complete control over civil society.

Alternatively, the regime could outlast the protests and instead pursue a reformist agenda, shedding revolutionary ideology in favor of pragmatism. China offers a successful model for such a pivot. Focusing on economic development, lifting millions out of poverty, and modernizing the country would help restore clerical legitimacy. An Islamic Republic focused on the economy could renew ties with the U.S. and reopen itself to the wider world. However, the expansion of civil rights alongside economic growth is improbable.

At best, Iranians could hope for a Turkish model. Empowering elected institutions like the Majlis and repurposing local councils established nationwide could herald a new era of democracy.9 Populist forces promising material advancement for the masses would most likely thrive, and the transformation would fall short of engineering a liberal society capable of supporting elections. The dream of Iranian pluralism remains alien.

A few miles from the Shah-apparent, another D.C. resident has also made statements regarding the ongoing unrest. “You better not start shooting because we’ll start shooting too,” said Donald Trump on Friday.10 Whether foreign intervention will be necessary—or welcome—is yet to be seen.

Conclusion

Weakened by war with Israel, the ayatollah Ali Khamenei would not be the first Middle Eastern despot to fall. But his regime’s implosion would mark the end of a dreadful chapter in Middle Eastern history. What remains of the Islamic Republic’s axis of resistance would crumble, heralding a new era of peace…or massive bloodletting. Protesters, fed up with unabating hunger and censorship, risk their lives today to fight for a better tomorrow for themselves and the rest of the world.

Bibliography

Amnesty International. “Iran: Deaths and injuries rise amid authorities’ renewed cycle of protest bloodshed.” January 8, 2026. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/01/iran-deaths-injuries-authorities-protest-bloodshed/.

Apple Jr., R. W. “Khomeini Arrives in Teheran, Urges Ouster of Foreigners; Millions Rally to Greet Him.” The New York Times. February 1, 1979. https://www.nytimes.com/1979/02/01/archives/khomeini-arrives-in-teheran-urges-ouster-of-foreigners-millions.html. Accessed January 10, 2026.

CNBC. “New Trump warning as Iran cuts internet with protests across country.” January 10, 2026. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/10/new-trump-warning-as-iran-cuts-internet-with-protests-across-country.html.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. “2026 Iranian Protests.” Last modified January 10, 2026. https://www.britannica.com/event/2026-Iranian-Protests.

Instagram. “این پیامی مستقیم خطاب به نیروهای مسلح و امنیتی ایران است.” Post. Accessed January 10, 2026.

International Labour Organization. ILOSTAT. “Iran (Islamic Republic of) — Country Profile.” Accessed January 10, 2026. https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/country-profiles/irn/.

Parent, Deepa. “Two people confirmed dead as Iran protests turn into ‘battlefield’.” The Guardian. January 1, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/01/two-people-dead-iran-economic-crisis-protests-battlefield.

Sadjadpour, Karim. “The Autumn of the Ayatollahs: What Kind of Change Is Coming to Iran?” Foreign Affairs 104, no. 6 (November/December 2025). Published October 14, 2025. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/autumn-ayatollahs.

Image Credit: New York Times

“Tolerance is conjugated like an irregular verb: I am outraged, you are sensitive, he is dogmatic.” - Irene Vallejo, Papyrus

Introduction

Democracy and liberty have long been the defining characteristics of America. Predating independence, the American continent welcomed immigrants seeking to create an idealized society—a society built to escape 17th-century European poverty and rigid hierarchy. Puritans, Quakers, and others aspired to develop a land free from religious persecution, fortified by democratic institutions, and promising renewed prosperity.

Four hundred years on, coming off of political assassinations, kidnappings, and insurrections, we risk losing sight of these core principles. We are moving farther and farther away from being a land free of ideological persecution, a haven for liberal democracy, and a land full of economic opportunity, as we come to resemble the Britain the pilgrims first fled. The American dream is in peril.

Trump, Inequality & the Allure of Socialism

Income inequality is worse than it was during the Gilded Age. At over 30%, the one-percenters control more of the nation’s wealth than ever before.1 While tech executives and other elites purchase luxury yachts, throw extravagant weddings, and receive billions in bonuses, the masses struggle to afford eggs. GDP has never been higher; our industries have never been stronger. And yet, purchasing power has remained unchanged over the last 60 years.2 Americans, young people struggling to get by, are sick and tired of scrolling through their social media feeds, watching the elites frivolously spend dollars, when they are unable to purchase a home, feed their children, and afford healthcare.

It is no surprise that Donald Trump won in 2016. And won again in 2024. Americans are searching for a savior—a leader who acknowledges their plight and who will work to improve their condition. Someone who will champion their cause and who will hold the elites accountable. Put simply, Americans came to realize that the establishment had failed, and Trump, in accessible rhetoric, made it clear that he would: Take. It. Down.

And what has Trump done to fulfill his oath? Eight months into his second term, Trump has repeatedly taken steps to cater to the wealthy while gutting social services. Instead of fighting inflation, he has levied inflationary tariffs. Rather than push for greater accountability from corporations, he has come after regulators. He is using the presidency to enrich himself while destroying the programs and institutions that millions rely on for their survival. Trump is not a populist; he is the epitome of the corrupt elite he claims he is resisting.

Zohran Mamdani’s meteoric rise to the top is a sign of the times. The generational political talent’s success in the Democratic mayoral primary in NYC is a testament to the widespread discontent among, especially young, voters. The establishment had failed them, and now the man, who had promised to watch out for them, the one they had put their faith in, had failed them, too. Seeking a way out and a path towards prosperity, Americans are turning to a form of Mamdani socialism and politics: identifying real-world issues while embracing idealistic yet unrealistic solutions. Over 60% of Democrats now say they have a favorable view of socialism. Only 54% of Americans overall say they view capitalism positively.3 Struggling with economic woes and increasingly widespread chronic solitude, helplessness, and depression, citizens naturally look to their government for care. And as memories of the Cold War and the abject failure of the Soviet bloc economies fade in our collective memory, Americans no longer associate socialism with evil. Socialism has become politically viable.

Conclusion

As Americans come to discover Trump’s genuine priorities, the political blowback will be hard to contain. Trump’s failure to live up to his promise of putting average Americans, his voters, first, will only exacerbate existing tensions. Violence and extremism thrive in chaos, and the US cannot handle much more of either. Mainstream democrats and anti-Trump Republicans ought to restore faith in the American dream and prove to voters that capitalism can work in their favor. They have to renew the energy that first sent English emigres across the Atlantic and later put us on the moon. In the coming era of AI-induced upheaval, unifying the nation will be of utmost importance. It is up to us all to renew our commitment to collective prosperity.

“They remembered a million useless things, a quarrel with a work-mate, a hunt for a lost bicycle pump, the expression on a long-dead sister's face, the swirls of dust on a windy morning seventy years ago: but all the relevant facts were outside the range of their vision. They were like the ant, which can see small objects but not large ones. And when memory failed and written records were falsified—when that happened, the claim of the Party to have improved the conditions of human life had got to be accepted, because there did not exist, and never again could exist, any standard against which it could be tested.” - George Orwell, 1984

In the aftermath of WWI, American foreign policy has been responsible for toppling dictatorial regimes, conducting humanitarian military interventions, and establishing organizations to facilitate global collaboration. One hundred seven years on, that legacy hangs in the balance. A century of bipartisan liberal internationalism—spanning 31 presidencies—is over: in 2025, multilateralism is no longer a U.S. priority.

President Trump is undermining the calculated efforts of his predecessors by cutting foreign aid, imposing (recently deemed illegal) tariffs, and abandoning longtime allies in favor of relationships with like-minded autocrats. In the process, he is supplying Xi with the circumstances he needs to assemble a coalition determined to defeat American hegemony. Despite the president’s vindictive rhetoric and promises to punish the other, American citizens and our way of life are in jeopardy. In awful irony, his most faithful supporters, those responsible for his historic return, are particularly vulnerable.

Very few moments from the last six months better epitomize Trump’s approach to foreign policy than his meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky in February. The Oval Office fiasco, complete with middle school bickering, would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. A sitting American president berating the executive of an allied nation under siege—on national television— without any real backlash from Republicans is a testament to the success Trumpian ideology has had in completing its takeover of the right.

Beyond indifference from members of his own party, it is the sycophantic praise the president receives—reminiscent of what is found in totalitarian regimes—that is most concerning. Representative Andy Ogles’ post on X, made in response to a video of the February exchange, reads, “This is what it looks like to stand up for America.”1 Lindsey Graham, a one-time loyal supporter of Ukraine, echoed similar sentiments, holding Zelensky responsible for the breach of protocol. Unwilling to risk their cushy positions, Republicans on Capitol Hill are falling in line, abandoning their conservative principles and belief in the American-led global order. What Trump says, or more aptly, what Trump demands, becomes the law of the land through executive action, bypassing congressional debate and input, and is rubber-stamped by the judicial branch. His approach instead relies on handshake “business” deals made without expertise or any specialized knowledge. The “adults”—experts on American public policy and diplomacy—are nowhere to be found.

The effects of Trump’s autocratic approach to governance are already being felt within the US. The war being waged on higher education, the deployment of the national guard on home soil,2 inhumane ICE deportations,3 and cuts to FEMA4 all undermine the principles—freedom, inclusion, solidarity—upon which our nation is built.

But domestic policy is only half the story. The unconstitutional scrapping of USAID contracts is estimated to result in 5.7 million more Africans falling below the poverty line and millions of additional cases of HIV.5 In the short term, cuts will increase displacement, exacerbating the existing immigration crisis as families seek opportunities elsewhere. In the long run, less American Aid means less influence in countries that have been reliant on U.S. funding for decades, at a time when China is investing billions as part of its Belt & Road Initiative and Russian mercenaries are trekking through Western Africa. The US was already losing the war for hearts and minds of the global south; Trump has eliminated the few footholds we had, weakening our coalition and empowering Moscow and Beijing.

Tariffs imposed on allies and enemies alike are pushing nations away and into Xi’s arms. Just this week, following the imposition of a 50% tariff on Indian goods, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was warmly embraced, both physically and metaphorically, by Chinese President Xi Jinping as part of a larger economic summit in Tianjin for the first time in seven years.6 In recent months, various trading partners have likewise made private and public pivots toward China. In his second term, the absence of experts is manifesting itself in a collapse of the status quo. Beyond higher prices at the grocery store, price hikes that have outsized impacts on the average American, tariffs are threatening our security beyond diplomatic quarrels. The offshoring of innovation and cuts in grants, amid a technological arms race, give our adversaries time and an edge in any potential conflicts.

The 47th president has also repeatedly undermined Article 5 of the NATO alliance. The organization was established as a bulwark to counter growing Soviet aggression, precisely because we understood the value of European security for American and global prosperity.7 Now, at a time when the threat to Eastern European sovereignty from Russia is at its highest since the Cold War, Trump is verbally assaulting allied leaders, while simultaneously hosting summits and rolling out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin. A stronger Western coalition and a weaker Russia are assets for the U.S., well worth the trillions spent on defense.

China is more than happy and ready to fill the vacuum left behind by an isolationist America. We should not let them.

Footnotes:

Image Credit: NYT.

“A good way to marginalize the most dangerous political movements is to prove the success of your own. If liberals do not want Americans to turn to the false promise of strongmen, they need to offer the fruits of effective government. Redistribution is important. But it is not enough.” — Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson

Scrolling through headlines and social media, it is clear we are in the midst of a political realignment: a devolution into a world where politicians no longer abide by established American norms, responsible for decades of relative prosperity.

In the last few months, American citizens have witnessed the erosion of their constitutional rights and the perversion of their founding principles. And while one party has fallen in line, unable to mount a resistance, the other has largely failed to intervene. Lacking an effective leader and direction, the popularity of the Democratic Party has plummeted. If American liberals hope to control the White House or have any real influence in governance, a successful repositioning is of utmost importance. Donald Trump did not rise to power thanks to his political acumen and sound policy; his rise was precipitated by years of failures on the American left: a failure to serve the average citizen. And while thoughtful policy proposals may not have put Trump in the White House, they are what is required to dislodge his harmful ideology from the American political system.

Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson offers a perspective with which to revolutionize a party that has failed to metamorphose. Rather than generate new methods for addressing 21st-century challenges, liberals have relied upon drawn-out court cases and legal barriers—key to their 20th-century success—to push for their agenda. When paired with American conservatism, intent on “attacking government,” we are left with politicians and institutions that are unable to govern. Or more aptly: Build.

Even while surrounded by the nearly unimaginable material wealth and widespread luxuries unthinkable to the early 20th-century American, the US has failed to invent and build more of what people need. Klein puts it well: “We have a startling abundance of the goods that fill a house and a shortage of what’s needed to build a good life.”

To counter the populist right, Democrats—and Republicans—should focus on building more homes, investing in green energy (including nuclear), and providing funding for high-risk scientific research. The government needs to improve its collaboration with the private sector to bring to life technologies that would otherwise not be invented, and deploy those that are already around. Rather than leave the distribution of the fruits of American innovation to the Chinese, the US should take a proactive approach to manufacturing and delivery. To combat the climate crisis, maintain our leadership in Artificial Intelligence — a technology unlike any other — and enhance the quality of American lives beyond mere material luxuries, we must rethink our approach to government. The America of the past, built upon antiquated, ineffective legalism, is insufficient. We need an America that invents, that builds, and that, above all else, champions abundance over scarcity.

A new political era has begun in the world’s largest democracy. In a surprise turn of events the Bharatiya Janata Party lost its governing majority during the parliamentary elections that took place across 43 days this spring. A hobbled Modi now has to rely on allies to push through economic and social reforms, a welcome change for the millions of Indians who are apart of minority groups. His domestic and international appeal among his loyal followers, however, remains substantial. Modi, a self-proclaimed Hindu divinity, has spent his decade in power tightening his grasp on Indians globally. His charisma and appeal to Hindu nationalism have made him a symbol of Indian power and growing influence. His popularity is best felt among hardworking immigrants who hope to see their nation shine. The power to be obtained from international campaigning is considerable; with over 34 million Indians living overseas, they form the largest diaspora globally. Modi and his party harness the power of communities and organizations established by international offshoots of his campaign to secure votes and advance his global agenda. Earlier this year, a group in England founded by Friends of the BJP held an event in support of the Hindu nationalist regime, drawing notable attendance and featuring an address from a conservative MP. The political address highlighted support for his constituents and celebrated Modi’s government and achievements. Modi, along with his opponents from Congress and other parties, are certain to leverage the influence of Indians living abroad to cling to power and bolster their image. 

Even after Indians who have chosen to be naturalized in their adopted nation and forcibly renounce their citizenship, their influence over their friends and family back home remains. Residents look to their immigrant counterparts for approval and inspiration on all matters. Their desire to improve the image of India abroad also plays an important role in their political loyalty. The prime minister’s work to sell India as a manufacturing powerhouse and capital of innovation to the world has partly paid off at the ballot box. A study conducted by Carnegie Endowment found support for the BJP to surpass support for the opposition among expatriates. Aware of his global popularity, Modi has held rallies worldwide to cultivate his global image. 

Modi’s success, however, raises a profound ethical dilemma: Should citizens living abroad be involved in local politics?

For most immigrants, the day-to-day politics in their country of origin has little to no impact on their lives. Housing, education, and other areas of living take precedence over Indian politics for the vast majority of the 18 million Indian immigrants who retain their citizenship. Consequently, traveling to their place of birth to vote, as one must in India, is senseless for most. A harsher judgment may ask: Why should immigrants have a say in local parliamentary elections? Some may argue it is an immigrant’s responsibility to vote for a better future to prevent others from having to move abroad. However, immigrants may lack the first-hand experience necessary to make informed decisions for residents. Immigrants may also face a potential conflict of interest in local politics, a factor that cannot be overlooked. While India’s laws surrounding dual citizenship aim to prevent any conflict, they may not address all concerns. Donations, rallies, and influence are all avenues for non-citizens to get involved and have an outsized impact on local politics. As the BJP, hobbled by losses, enters a third term in power analyzing the effects of immigration and the BJP’s vision for the diaspora is essential to understanding Modi’s foreign policy. India’s diaspora is a compelling testament to the enduring impact immigrants continue to have following their departure.

Variance in political parties and ideologies within the democratic systems of nations has given citizens ample choice in their governance. Within free nations, it would seem intuitive to encourage the creation of groups across the political spectrum. But are there ideologies that threaten the very foundation of democracy and the civil liberties their citizens enjoy? When asked to name dangerous belief systems, one’s mind could naturally float toward far-right nationalism and fascism. Others might be adamantly opposed to socialism and the fundamentals of the welfare state. While these political constructions conflict at the core of their beliefs, charismatic political figures pertaining to all have fought for power under a common banner: populism. Barry Straus, the author of Populism Through the Ages: A Challenge for Democracy and professor at Cornell University, says, “While democracy respects the rule of law, adheres to constitutional limits, and seeks a balance between classes and groups, populism is ambiguous. It promotes the people while denouncing the elite and cares less for law than results. And it is all the rage today.” The rise of populism could lead to an erosion of democratic institutions globally, highlighting the crucial need to prevent populist movements from taking power. India and Brazil are prime examples of how populism, a political approach capable of mobilizing diverse ideological movements, can manifest in various forms contingent upon the specific national context.

In India, Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, exemplifies how extreme nationalism can propel a populist movement to power. The BJP has gone about dismantling the inclusive and progressive policies that had defined post-independence India. He had initially come to power by casting Congress, an Indian political party that had dominated Indian politics before the BJP’s rise, as elites out of touch with the nation’s pulse. Modi painted Congress’ beliefs of secularism, socialism, and focus on diversity as Western or English and a threat to Indian culture. Preaching to a population whose religious and ethnic pride had been suppressed for centuries by Mughal and British colonial rule, the Hindu majority felt the accusations of Western idealism hit close to home. He was able to convince northern voters that the nation should be controlled by its religious and ethnic majority, degrading minorities, including the 172 million Muslims, to second-class citizens. His movement has been successful in instilling fear of imaginary Muslim elites amongst the Hindu majority. Modi’s belief in the power of Hindu homogeneity alienates not only the sizeable Muslim population but the educated southern Indians as well, who have continued their support of Congress in the nation’s elections. Many of those in the South were appalled to see the prime minister unveil his campaign at the opening ceremony of a Hindu temple built upon the ruins of the 16th-century Babri mosque. The mosque had been destroyed in 1992 by Hindu mobs, a reminder of the nation’s complicated religious dynamics. 

Modi’s popularity has allowed his government to silence not only minorities but also opposition parties with the support of government bodies. The Indian government has utilized “tax terrorism,” unjust corruption charges, and other means to silence oppositional campaigns, thus stripping citizens of their rights to democracy. Unsurprisingly, his party’s economic success, paired with Islamaphobic rhetoric, is predicted to win the authoritarian populist a majority in India’s parliament or Lok Sabha in the nation’s ongoing elections. The BJP and Narendra Modi have been successful in using religion to take control of the country and undermine its democratic institutions. 

Brazil’s former radical right-populist political leader, Jair Bolsonaro, took advantage of the nation’s unfortunate economic circumstances in the late 2000s and the subsequent recession around 2013 to ascend to the presidency. The home of the Amazon has a long and tumultuous history with populism dating back to the 1940s. However, after finally emerging from military dictatorship in the mid-20th century, Brazilians voted for a left-wing government with an overwhelming majority. The left created far-reaching welfare programs and embraced the nation’s minorities. However, once the recession took hold of the Brazillian economy around 2013, the center-left Workers Party’s redistribution policies, poverty alleviation programs, and civil rights policies fueled contempt in those not benefiting from the government’s exuberant spending. The drop worldwide in petroleum prices, one of the biggest drivers of the Brazilian economy, and a steep drop in exports to China, a key trading partner, had a profound impact on public sentiment. Economic uncertainty, paired with corruption scandals involving Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the leader of the Workers Party, and the spread of organized criminal activity, laid the foundation for the rise of Bolsonaro. A former captain in the Brazilian military and the head of the Social Liberal Party, he successfully appealed to the masses through his rejection of everything the ruling left had stood for. In the past, Bolsonaro has openly praised former president Donald Trump’s foreign policy, been against progressive policies towards the LGBTQ community, and said men and women do not deserve to be paid equally. Once in power, Bolsonaro went about dismantling the nation’s democratic institutions. He worked to curtail freedom of expression through the use of “anti-terrorism laws” and asked students to report professors who they believed were spreading “ideological belief.” In addition, his administration requested prison sentences for at least 16 critics and blocked critics on numerous of the government’s social media accounts. During his time in office, he also repeatedly spoke fondly of Brazil’s time under military dictatorship and filled his government with 6,000 active-duty and retired military personnel. In a rally in January of 2021, he said, “It’s the armed forces that decide whether people live in a democracy or a dictatorship.” 

Prior to the 2022 presidential elections, Bolosonaro conducted campaigns to intimidate the Supreme Court in an attempt to prevent the vote. The Supreme Court had been overseeing investigations into his conduct, an annoyance that proved to be the end of his political ambitions after the court’s decision last year to bar him from running for office until 2030. At rallies across the nation, Bolosonaro claimed the electoral system was fraudulent and that the results of past elections had been corrupt. The former president said there “could not be elections that create doubts among voters.” The Socialist Republic Party and Jair Bolonaro successfully used the country’s precarious state to take control and undermine its democratic institutions. 

In both India and Brazil, leaders have exploited nationalism and fascism to appeal to citizens’ concerns and point to a group they label as “other” as the culprit, all while systematically eroding their citizens’ democratic rights. Operating under the guise of acting in the ordinary person’s best interest, populists implement policies that benefit the elite while impoverishing the masses. The widening gap between the rich and poor, coupled with heightening international tensions and technological innovations, threatens to reverse the progress made in spreading democracy globally. The civil liberties citizens enjoy under the fledgling democracies established during the turn of the century are at risk of being torn away under authoritarian populist leadership. Through an exploration of nations such as India and Brazil, which have had their democracies heavily weakened by populism, citizens can better understand the true nature of populist movements and prevent their ascension to power.

Originally published in the Fieldston News

As the Bharatiya Janata Party seeks reelection in the nation’s upcoming elections, running from April 19th to June 1st, it is capitalizing on India’s continued rise as a top-five world economy that has substantially improved the standard of living in the nation. Under the leadership of Narendra Modi and the ruling BJP, India’s economy has grown at a record-breaking pace. In the third quarter of 2023, India’s economy grew at an annualized rate of 8.4%, the fastest of any economy globally. A significant milestone in India’s ascent was its hosting of the G-20 in 2023, a forum for international economic cooperation that includes the world’s twenty largest economies. This was not just a display of hospitality but a powerful statement of India’s growing influence on the global stage while demonstrating Modi’s vaulting ambitions. During the two-day conference, Modi advocated for reforming global institutions, including the United Nations Security Council, asserting his desire for India to hold permanent member status. 

As the election draws on, a question on the minds of millions in the subcontinent is: “What is the price of success?” Modi’s authoritarian grip on all elements of Indian life has heralded a transformative era for the country. His party has continuously pushed ruthless nationalism and an anti-Muslim agenda, both elements of the BJP’s vision of India’s future. The party’s anti-muslim rhetoric has alienated the 172 million Muslims in the nation, a price Modi is willing to pay for his nation’s success. The ruling party has consistently used violence against its political and international opponents as a means to get what it wants, a practice certain to persist in a second term. Finally, the BJP’s ruthless reach into every aspect of Indian life has threatened the human rights of the nation’s citizens. However, even through the massive upheaval, recent polling indicates that the Hindu nationalists will not only maintain their current political influence but expand.

With the general election looming, it seems his political juggernaut has no fundamental obstacle, having cleared away the opposition through legal means. Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi’s chief minister and national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party, was jailed on March 21st on corruption charges. A key player in the country’s main opposition alliance, the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (I.N.D.I.A), his arrest is only one of the many incarcerations carried out by Modi’s government. The Enforcement Directorate (ED), a national agency responsible for upholding economic law and investigating transgressions, has been weaponized by the ruling coalition to go after the opposition. 95% of the political cases filed by the agency in the past ten years have been against the opposition. The opposition and their supporters demonstrate their contempt through written statements and protests.

General elections are now less than ten days away. In the nation of 1.4 billion, preparations and last-minute campaign efforts have begun. India’s largest opposition party, “Congress,” blames the government for employing “tax terrorism” to undermine their campaign efforts. The party claims the government has frozen millions in monetary assets. With a crackdown on opposition leaders coupled with monetary seizures, it is no surprise nearly every poll suggests Narendra Modi’s BJP and his National Democratic Alliance have a sizable lead. The opposition has continued to put up a fight, especially in Southern India, where the ruling party is not as popular. Derek O’Brien, a member of Trinamool Congress, India’s third-largest opposition party, and a leader in parliament, has made a point of voicing his concern with the election commission. He has already filed, according to The Guardian, “dozens of complaints” and has vowed to carry on the fight.