Back to the « good old days », back to authoritarianism – diepresse.com

We are increasingly witnessing profound upheavals that still have to be processed both individually and socially. In Europe one speaks of decline. In the USA there is even speech of decades of exploitation by allies and opponents. What happened? A look into the past could provide information.

After the Second World War, some countries, mainly in North America and Western Europe, experienced an enormous increase in prosperity, often at the expense of other parts of the world. With the case of the Iron Curtain and the expansion of world trade in the 1990s, more and more states were able to share this prosperity.

When today populists speak of a return to « good old days », this is one thing above all: the desire to return to a state of the exploitation of many by a few. One should also state that despite the increase in the wealth of other regions, we are not worse, but the framework conditions have changed.

Fear of decline

Then where does the fear of decline come from? Since 1945, also on the initiative of the USA, a global economic system has been created based on a global division of labor. There were low customs barriers because it was realized that broad wealth could be created by division of labor.

The increase in prosperity in different parts of the world had finally led to the growth of the entire global economy. A good example of this is Africa, which is much more wealthy today than in the 1980s.

However, increasing globalization and digital networking have created challenges that many find overwhelming. Historically, the effects of digital transformation are comparable to the industrial revolution in the 19th century. Both caused profound social changes and a felt acceleration of life. In view of this overwhelming, many are looking for simple explanations and leadership.

Challenges such as migration, economic crises, pandemics and wars have created a feeling of fainting in the past 15 years, to which governments could obviously react too little.

What is striking is the accusation, especially in democratic states, to do too little against these fears. The idea that authoritarian forms of government can react more efficiently is not uncommon. The extreme athlete Felix Baumgartner also caused a stir in 2016 when he demanded a « moderate dictatorship », « where there are a few people from the private sector, they are familiar with them ». In fact, the question arises whether democracies react less to challenges. Democratic decisions are naturally more clumsy because they take a variety of opinions into account. In contrast, authoritarian decisions can be made faster.

However, it is striking that those states are often criticized that allow the diversity of opinion. Paradoxically, those systems are considered weak and inefficient that are strong enough to allow criticism.

In this context, the returning of autocratic forms of rule is terrifying. Democratic parties obviously manage to mobilize voters and convey a feeling of security. How often in the story leads to the desire for leadership. This gives authoritarian -thinking parties that explain the world through a simplified world view.

Radicalization in « Bubbles »

The unfiltered flow of information on social media and the use of artificial intelligence also lead to « bubbles » in which people are radicalized through one -sided information. The most famous example is the controversial tech billionaire Elon Muskof which an X manager claimed that he was the first tech tycoon that was « radicalized by his own algorithm ». At the same time, traditional media lose importance, which results in the decline in facts and reflection, since its gatekeeper function is replaced by unfiltered information.

In the past two decades, capital has increasingly concentrated in its hands. Loud Forbes the number of billionaires worldwide rose from 587 (2005) to over 3000 in 2025. A financial elite has developed, which also increasingly has political influence in liberal democracies. This influence is noticeable: so-called illiberal « democracies » are formed, in which politics is less determined by political ideologies than from the desire for power and prosperity accumulation of a few, mostly wealthy supporters, which can be favored by an autocratic ruler. Democratic systems are increasingly being hollowed out.

Blower period of kleptocracy

The concept of « kleptocracy » – originally used to describe unsustainable conditions in the former Soviet Union – aptly describes those systems in which few actors use public resources to enrich.

In addition to Hungary, that in the EU An alarming example of an illiberal « democracy » is also experiencing the attempt by an autocratic coup d’état in the USA. Republican strategists have been working on a redesign of the executive there for years.

The influential Heritage Foundation With the « Project 2025 » there has been a plan for Trump’s presidency that provides for a significant concentration of power in the hands of the president, the reduction of non-line agents, restructuring in the judicial system, a realignment of the economic system and a hoped-for strengthening of US dominance in a protectoral world economy.

The common good plays a subordinate role. Promised relief for industrial workers do not materialize as well as a procedure against inflation. On the contrary, almost all economists agree that the tariffs introduced by Trump lead to an increase in prices. Musk’s commissioning with the leadership of the controversial Department of Government Efficiency is another indication of the actual influence of democratically non -legitimized financially strong figures in illiberal « democracies ».

Call for strong leadership

Social upheavals have triggered uncertainty since modernity. Today the desire for strong leadership grows again. Populistic parties offer supposedly efficient solutions-a phenomenon that could also be observed in the 1930s.

But the story shows that only democracies have the well -being of the entire population in view and secure peace and prosperity in the long term. In this sense, a hasty desire for a stronger leadership should be critically questioned.

Emails to: