What do you think?
Rate this book
The Revenge of Power: How Autocrats Are Reinventing Politics for the 21st Century
Populizm, polaryzacja i postprawda – trzy dobrze znane narzędzia manipulacji wykorzystywane przez rządzących. Współcześni autokraci połączyli te techniki, by w nowy, przerażający sposób podkopywać fundamenty demokracji. Naím ujawnia powiązania pomiędzy wydarzeniami o globalnym zasięgu a taktykami politycznymi, które stosowane razem prowadzą do głębokiej, często ukrytej, transformacji władzy i polityki na całym świecie. Wyjaśnia, w jaki sposób w miejscach i sytuacjach całkowicie odmiennych pod względem politycznym, ekonomicznym i społecznym obieranie tych samych strategii prowadzi do koncentracji władzy, a także ujawnia mechanizmy opracowane przez autokratów do walki z osłabiającymi ich siłami.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published February 22, 2022
268 people are currently reading
2634 people want to read
About the author
Moisés Naím
42 books174 followersMoisés Naím is an internationally-syndicated columnist and best-selling author of influential books. In 2011, he launched Efecto Naím, an innovative weekly television program highlighting surprising world trends with visually-striking videos, graphics and interviews with world leaders which is widely watched in Latin America today. Dr. Naím gained international recognition with the successful re-launch of the prominent journal Foreign Policy and, over his fourteen years (1996-2010) as editor, turned the magazine into a modern, award-winning publication on global politics and economics.
Author of books:
* Paper Tigers and Minotaurs: The Politics of Venezuela's Economic Reforms (1993, economics)
* Altered States: Globalization, Sovereignty and Governance (2000, economics)
* Illicit: How Smugglers, Traffickers and Copycats Are Hijacking the Global Economy (2005, economics)
* The End of Power: From Boardrooms to Battlefields and Churches to States, Why Being in Charge Isn't What It Used to Be (2013, social studies)
Author of books:
* Paper Tigers and Minotaurs: The Politics of Venezuela's Economic Reforms (1993, economics)
* Altered States: Globalization, Sovereignty and Governance (2000, economics)
* Illicit: How Smugglers, Traffickers and Copycats Are Hijacking the Global Economy (2005, economics)
* The End of Power: From Boardrooms to Battlefields and Churches to States, Why Being in Charge Isn't What It Used to Be (2013, social studies)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews
July 14, 2022
In the second decade of the twenty-first century, we have seen several democracies elect right-wing political parties to power through the democratic process. The US, India, Brazil, Hungary, and Poland are examples. Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, Jair Bolsonaro, and Viktor Orbán acquired power with decisive mandates from the people. Modi and Orbán got re-elected after their term. The author of this book, Moisés Naím, says this is an alarming trend for democracies because these are authoritarian leaders. He points to the causes behind their rise in democracies and how they use democratic freedoms to attain power and then hold on to power by undermining it. The book makes its case through case studies of Donald Trump, Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, among others.
The book’s central thesis is that leaders with an autocratic outlook have found ways to positions of power in democracies by using the 3Ps, called populism, polarization and post-truth. Populism is not an ‘ism’ like socialism or liberalism. It is a strategy to win and wield power. It paints the authoritarian leader’s cause as the people’s cause and his opponent as belonging to the corrupt elite that stands in the way. Populism works by criminalizing its political rivals, using external threats, denigrating experts, attacking unfriendly media and undermining checks and balances. Polarization works by emphasizing differences rather than unity, eliminating the possibility of a middle ground, and pushing every person and organization to take sides. It works to marginalize immigrants and minorities. Post-truth is doing away with shared, independent standards for truth. It is a condition when facts and knowledge get blurred by belief and opinion. Unlike lying, post-truth is not an individual moral failing. It is a feature of the communications infrastructure of politics and power in today’s world. Rumors about President Obama being a Muslim or not US-born are recent examples.
Using these techniques, the author argues, leaders like Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, and Vladimir Putin have brought about undemocratic regimes in their respective countries. They wield and maintain immense power in a world that doesn’t recognize that kind of power as legitimate. They do this by faking loyalty to the democratic consensus even as they work to undermine democratic checks and balances in their countries. Sensing the success of this approach in strong democratic nations like the US, India and the Philippines, leaders in several countries are trending towards what the author calls ‘kakistocracy’. Kakistocracy is a state or society governed by its least suitable or competent citizens. Then, he contemplates on what it portends for the future of our democracies and freedom itself.
The book has a strong liberal bias and hence is partisan in content. One glaring shortcoming of the book is that it does not consider the possibility that people could have elected Trump, Modi, or Erdogan for justifiable reasons. Populism, polarization and post-truth may not have played a leading role. It is an untenable argument that says people got deluded when they elect a political party or leader we do not approve. Respect for democracy demands respect for the mandate of the people. The decision to choose a right-wing government does not signify that people lost faith in liberal democracy or its institutions. The people of India, the US, the UK, etc, still believe in an independent judiciary, a free press, human rights, and individual freedom. Their choice of right-wing leaders means the left and the centrist parties failed to acknowledge the legitimate aspirations and fears of a sizable part of their population. Choosing Donald Trump or Narendra Modi is not choosing an authoritarian political order like China, Russia or Turkey. It is a people's protest. As a counter to 3P, let us examine other explanations for Donald Trump’s victory in the US and Brexit’s win in the UK.
Political scientist Diana C. Mutz of the University of Pennsylvania analyzed in-depth survey data of voters belonging to key categories in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential polls. Those whose incomes declined, whose incomes increased little, who lost their jobs, who were concerned about expenses, and who thought free trade affected their lives, were some of them. Dr. Mutz found that none of these effects motivated people to switch from voting for Obama in 2012 to supporting Trump in 2016. Another analyst, Adam Serwer, has pointed out that Hillary Clinton defeated Trump among Americans making less than $50,000 a year. They dispel the notion that Globalization’s cruelties disenfranchised most Trump supporters. If Trump voters weren’t losing income or jobs, why did they vote for Trump? Dr. Mutz says they were concerned about their place in their societies. Let us explore this further.
When members of a hitherto long-dominant group feel threatened, they get nostalgic and try to protect the ‘status quo’ in whatever way they can. Almost 80 percent of white working-class voters who had anxieties about the “American way of life”, chose Trump over Clinton. Half of all Americans view globalized trade as something that benefits other countries at the expense of jobs for Americans. White Evangelicals see more discrimination against Christians than Muslims in the United States. All this suggests acute identity anxiety. The 1979 Khomeini revolution in Iran had similar overtones. For decades, the Shah of Iran destabilized the lives of ordinary Iranians through his ‘modernization’ programs. It resulted in the Khomeini revolution, which promised a return to the ‘Islamic way of life’ - familiar and pacifying to the majority. Dismissing this anxiety as the outcome of populism, post-truth and polarization is insensitive.
Identity anxiety is harder for politicians and policymakers to address than a straight-forward economic slump. It does not respond to disability checks or universal basic incomes. Alleviating resentment of demographic changes or convincing people to embrace changing racial and gender norms are difficult tasks. It is possible that Trump supporters elected him because they felt threatened and marginalized, not on an economic, but an existential level. Liberals may feel it is irrational, but they need to show compassion to this fear. So, Trump might have won irrespective of populism, polarization and post-truth. Perhaps the 3Ps could have helped Trump win more comfortably than otherwise.
Next, we look at explanations for Brexit other than the 3Ps. According to the BBC, immigration and ceding sovereignty to the EU were the two key issues in the Brexit vote. Various experts warned Britons about the economic chaos that can ensue because of Brexit. But it found no resonance among half the citizens. On the Brexit vote, 78% of those 65 or over voted in the Brexit election, compared with 43% of 18 to 24-year-olds and 54% of 25 to 34-year-olds. Surveys revealed much higher support for Brexit among those aged 55 and over than among younger age groups. Three out of five voters aged 65 or over wanted to leave the EU.
Author and journalist David Goodhart says we must get beyond traditional dichotomies based on Left and Right to understand the Brexit vote. We can understand the new fault line in Brexit or the Trump earthquake better through a category called ‘the Somewheres’. The ‘Somewheres’ are UK citizens, less-educated and having few skills to compete in the EU job market. They feel comfortable with ‘the English way of life’ and often live within comfortable reach of where they were born or grew up. Increasing immigration makes the UK feel less like their native country. They are more rooted and prioritize local group attachments and security. According to Goodhart, fifty percent of the UK belong in the category ‘Somewheres’.
Goodheart says we should see Brexit as a protest by the ‘Somewheres’. It is against the generous opening of UK’s borders to East Europeans during Tony Blair’s tenure, and the neighborhoods fast becoming more diverse and hence ‘foreign’. It is against an economy that wants only University-educated people and a society whose social norms favor liberal contracts like gay marriage, multiculturalism, and the Global village. The ‘Somewheres’ are protesting more than jobs. They value more non-material things of the past, which are lost. It is not the foolishness of turning the clock back. Brexit is a statement about the country’s national identity as it is about its economic and political future. Hence, like the US, Britain also has swung right, because of identity anxiety.
Using populism, polarization and post-truth is not new in democracies. The author talks about right-wing populism but ignores populism of the Left. Defunding the police, abolishing immigration and Customs enforcement (ICE), labeling women as ‘birthing people’ and injecting anti-racism into classrooms are examples of left-wing populism. All political parties have their populists. Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren pander to populism. Greta Thunberg is an environmental populist. Communism, war on drugs, immigration and Islamic terrorism have played their part in polarization. ‘Missile gap with the USSR’ in 1958 and ‘Saddam Hussein has WMDs’ in 2003 demonstrate post-truth is not a recent invention. The ‘3Ps’ explain the right-wing tilt in democracies only partially. Our task is not countering the 3Ps, but fathoming why it has such powerful appeal. The book does not enlighten on this.
The book’s central thesis is that leaders with an autocratic outlook have found ways to positions of power in democracies by using the 3Ps, called populism, polarization and post-truth. Populism is not an ‘ism’ like socialism or liberalism. It is a strategy to win and wield power. It paints the authoritarian leader’s cause as the people’s cause and his opponent as belonging to the corrupt elite that stands in the way. Populism works by criminalizing its political rivals, using external threats, denigrating experts, attacking unfriendly media and undermining checks and balances. Polarization works by emphasizing differences rather than unity, eliminating the possibility of a middle ground, and pushing every person and organization to take sides. It works to marginalize immigrants and minorities. Post-truth is doing away with shared, independent standards for truth. It is a condition when facts and knowledge get blurred by belief and opinion. Unlike lying, post-truth is not an individual moral failing. It is a feature of the communications infrastructure of politics and power in today’s world. Rumors about President Obama being a Muslim or not US-born are recent examples.
Using these techniques, the author argues, leaders like Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, and Vladimir Putin have brought about undemocratic regimes in their respective countries. They wield and maintain immense power in a world that doesn’t recognize that kind of power as legitimate. They do this by faking loyalty to the democratic consensus even as they work to undermine democratic checks and balances in their countries. Sensing the success of this approach in strong democratic nations like the US, India and the Philippines, leaders in several countries are trending towards what the author calls ‘kakistocracy’. Kakistocracy is a state or society governed by its least suitable or competent citizens. Then, he contemplates on what it portends for the future of our democracies and freedom itself.
The book has a strong liberal bias and hence is partisan in content. One glaring shortcoming of the book is that it does not consider the possibility that people could have elected Trump, Modi, or Erdogan for justifiable reasons. Populism, polarization and post-truth may not have played a leading role. It is an untenable argument that says people got deluded when they elect a political party or leader we do not approve. Respect for democracy demands respect for the mandate of the people. The decision to choose a right-wing government does not signify that people lost faith in liberal democracy or its institutions. The people of India, the US, the UK, etc, still believe in an independent judiciary, a free press, human rights, and individual freedom. Their choice of right-wing leaders means the left and the centrist parties failed to acknowledge the legitimate aspirations and fears of a sizable part of their population. Choosing Donald Trump or Narendra Modi is not choosing an authoritarian political order like China, Russia or Turkey. It is a people's protest. As a counter to 3P, let us examine other explanations for Donald Trump’s victory in the US and Brexit’s win in the UK.
Political scientist Diana C. Mutz of the University of Pennsylvania analyzed in-depth survey data of voters belonging to key categories in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential polls. Those whose incomes declined, whose incomes increased little, who lost their jobs, who were concerned about expenses, and who thought free trade affected their lives, were some of them. Dr. Mutz found that none of these effects motivated people to switch from voting for Obama in 2012 to supporting Trump in 2016. Another analyst, Adam Serwer, has pointed out that Hillary Clinton defeated Trump among Americans making less than $50,000 a year. They dispel the notion that Globalization’s cruelties disenfranchised most Trump supporters. If Trump voters weren’t losing income or jobs, why did they vote for Trump? Dr. Mutz says they were concerned about their place in their societies. Let us explore this further.
When members of a hitherto long-dominant group feel threatened, they get nostalgic and try to protect the ‘status quo’ in whatever way they can. Almost 80 percent of white working-class voters who had anxieties about the “American way of life”, chose Trump over Clinton. Half of all Americans view globalized trade as something that benefits other countries at the expense of jobs for Americans. White Evangelicals see more discrimination against Christians than Muslims in the United States. All this suggests acute identity anxiety. The 1979 Khomeini revolution in Iran had similar overtones. For decades, the Shah of Iran destabilized the lives of ordinary Iranians through his ‘modernization’ programs. It resulted in the Khomeini revolution, which promised a return to the ‘Islamic way of life’ - familiar and pacifying to the majority. Dismissing this anxiety as the outcome of populism, post-truth and polarization is insensitive.
Identity anxiety is harder for politicians and policymakers to address than a straight-forward economic slump. It does not respond to disability checks or universal basic incomes. Alleviating resentment of demographic changes or convincing people to embrace changing racial and gender norms are difficult tasks. It is possible that Trump supporters elected him because they felt threatened and marginalized, not on an economic, but an existential level. Liberals may feel it is irrational, but they need to show compassion to this fear. So, Trump might have won irrespective of populism, polarization and post-truth. Perhaps the 3Ps could have helped Trump win more comfortably than otherwise.
Next, we look at explanations for Brexit other than the 3Ps. According to the BBC, immigration and ceding sovereignty to the EU were the two key issues in the Brexit vote. Various experts warned Britons about the economic chaos that can ensue because of Brexit. But it found no resonance among half the citizens. On the Brexit vote, 78% of those 65 or over voted in the Brexit election, compared with 43% of 18 to 24-year-olds and 54% of 25 to 34-year-olds. Surveys revealed much higher support for Brexit among those aged 55 and over than among younger age groups. Three out of five voters aged 65 or over wanted to leave the EU.
Author and journalist David Goodhart says we must get beyond traditional dichotomies based on Left and Right to understand the Brexit vote. We can understand the new fault line in Brexit or the Trump earthquake better through a category called ‘the Somewheres’. The ‘Somewheres’ are UK citizens, less-educated and having few skills to compete in the EU job market. They feel comfortable with ‘the English way of life’ and often live within comfortable reach of where they were born or grew up. Increasing immigration makes the UK feel less like their native country. They are more rooted and prioritize local group attachments and security. According to Goodhart, fifty percent of the UK belong in the category ‘Somewheres’.
Goodheart says we should see Brexit as a protest by the ‘Somewheres’. It is against the generous opening of UK’s borders to East Europeans during Tony Blair’s tenure, and the neighborhoods fast becoming more diverse and hence ‘foreign’. It is against an economy that wants only University-educated people and a society whose social norms favor liberal contracts like gay marriage, multiculturalism, and the Global village. The ‘Somewheres’ are protesting more than jobs. They value more non-material things of the past, which are lost. It is not the foolishness of turning the clock back. Brexit is a statement about the country’s national identity as it is about its economic and political future. Hence, like the US, Britain also has swung right, because of identity anxiety.
Using populism, polarization and post-truth is not new in democracies. The author talks about right-wing populism but ignores populism of the Left. Defunding the police, abolishing immigration and Customs enforcement (ICE), labeling women as ‘birthing people’ and injecting anti-racism into classrooms are examples of left-wing populism. All political parties have their populists. Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren pander to populism. Greta Thunberg is an environmental populist. Communism, war on drugs, immigration and Islamic terrorism have played their part in polarization. ‘Missile gap with the USSR’ in 1958 and ‘Saddam Hussein has WMDs’ in 2003 demonstrate post-truth is not a recent invention. The ‘3Ps’ explain the right-wing tilt in democracies only partially. Our task is not countering the 3Ps, but fathoming why it has such powerful appeal. The book does not enlighten on this.
December 3, 2022
In "Revenge of Power," journalistic, political, and academic heavyweight Moisés Naím draws an ugly picture of the state of the (political) world today.
He portrays the decline of democracy and its appeal, the inroads of authoritarianism and illiberalism, and, indeed, the revenge of power. A story of how power serves only itself, the strategies it uses to pull the wool over our collective heads, and how it's leading us by our collective noses towards accepting - even welcoming - the abolition of our collective and individual freedoms. In short, he summarizes it all as the "three Ps" - Populism, Polarization, and Post-Truth.
For the most parts, the book is pedagogical, clear, and compelling. Naím does a great job of outlining the strategies of Power, and how they're applicable to and used by both completely illiberal societies and on and from within democratic ones. What should make it even more troubling is that this is all very familiar stuff. There's not a strategy or phenomenon mentioned in this book that one can't find very clear examples of everywhere.
What's clear at the end is that authoritarians these days are not as crude and blunt as they were back in the heydays of feudalism, but just as ambitious. Ok, well, maybe some of them aren't much developed since back in the day, but today it's less about beating us over the head and more about deceiving us into welcoming our own downfall.
To achieve all this, authoritarians and wannabe authoritarians wield any number of rhetorical and political weapons. A few examples: They question and undermine objective truths and experts while creating subjective and/or alternative truths; they peddle pseudo-science; they foment divisiveness and stoke general suspicion of, and antagonism against, those who are different and/or think and act differently; they push "safety" measures of various kinds that simultaneously erode freedoms and rights; they generally act as a bully, denigrating, mocking, and threatening their opponents; they position themselves as the people's champion, the only savior, and generally attempt to establish a cult of personality around themselves; etc.
What I think he's missing in this analysis is more on why and how this all works. For me, I think it's really nice to believe in binary good and evil, right and wrong. In simple explanations. To deal with certainties and an authority that provides an unequivocal right and wrong, a place or state of being that does not allow for or has to merge divergent perspectives and ideas. To have an enemy.
I also missed a critical view of how non-authoritarian elements are committing many of the same sins as those the author lists - and thus making it easier for authoritarians to employ these. I mean, how can we argue for anything approaching an objective truth when we're only really willing to entertain one that corresponds with our own subjective one? And far too many of us are far too willing to dismiss others' opinions and views out of hand, as well as anything else that doesn't correspond with our world view. Add to that politicians and political parties and/or advocacy groups that are more concerned with their own relevance than with whether or not they do harm or not, and it's pretty clear that any solution should and must start from within ourselves (whether we're an individual or larger entity).
Speaking of solutions, the what-can-we-do part of the book also feels a little thin. It's both pretty vague and feels a bit rushed - but I think that's mostly because these are difficult tendencies and strategies to counter. Especially when the world just isn't as simple and uncomplicated as we'd generally like. Some of Naím's ideas for taking a stand against authoritarianism are undeniably good - like ranked choice voting (which should be relatively uncontroversial for anyone who's a fan of democracy) - some I would question or want more specifics on/about before passing judgement on. What's abundantly clear though, is that we do need to do something.
Criticisms notwithstanding, this is a very readable and, I think, important book. It's depressing and terrifying, and it's a reminder to remain vigilant, to champion democracy and its tenets. Despite its many flaws, it is the best we've got.
In that spirit, I'm going to finish this review with the same words I used in review of Anne Applebaum's book Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism - another book on this "cheerful" topic:
"Personally, despite a lot of negative trends, I believe there's hope for improvement. Something to fight for. And, on a basic level, a very clear path forward; open-mindedness.
Considering that, as Applebaum claims, '[g]iven the right conditions, any society can turn against democracy. Indeed, if history is anything to go by, all of our societies eventually will,' I think it relevant here, to channel our inner Dylan Thomas...
'Let's 'not go gentle into that good night,' let's 'rage, rage against the dying' democratic light."
Recommended.
He portrays the decline of democracy and its appeal, the inroads of authoritarianism and illiberalism, and, indeed, the revenge of power. A story of how power serves only itself, the strategies it uses to pull the wool over our collective heads, and how it's leading us by our collective noses towards accepting - even welcoming - the abolition of our collective and individual freedoms. In short, he summarizes it all as the "three Ps" - Populism, Polarization, and Post-Truth.
For the most parts, the book is pedagogical, clear, and compelling. Naím does a great job of outlining the strategies of Power, and how they're applicable to and used by both completely illiberal societies and on and from within democratic ones. What should make it even more troubling is that this is all very familiar stuff. There's not a strategy or phenomenon mentioned in this book that one can't find very clear examples of everywhere.
What's clear at the end is that authoritarians these days are not as crude and blunt as they were back in the heydays of feudalism, but just as ambitious. Ok, well, maybe some of them aren't much developed since back in the day, but today it's less about beating us over the head and more about deceiving us into welcoming our own downfall.
To achieve all this, authoritarians and wannabe authoritarians wield any number of rhetorical and political weapons. A few examples: They question and undermine objective truths and experts while creating subjective and/or alternative truths; they peddle pseudo-science; they foment divisiveness and stoke general suspicion of, and antagonism against, those who are different and/or think and act differently; they push "safety" measures of various kinds that simultaneously erode freedoms and rights; they generally act as a bully, denigrating, mocking, and threatening their opponents; they position themselves as the people's champion, the only savior, and generally attempt to establish a cult of personality around themselves; etc.
What I think he's missing in this analysis is more on why and how this all works. For me, I think it's really nice to believe in binary good and evil, right and wrong. In simple explanations. To deal with certainties and an authority that provides an unequivocal right and wrong, a place or state of being that does not allow for or has to merge divergent perspectives and ideas. To have an enemy.
I also missed a critical view of how non-authoritarian elements are committing many of the same sins as those the author lists - and thus making it easier for authoritarians to employ these. I mean, how can we argue for anything approaching an objective truth when we're only really willing to entertain one that corresponds with our own subjective one? And far too many of us are far too willing to dismiss others' opinions and views out of hand, as well as anything else that doesn't correspond with our world view. Add to that politicians and political parties and/or advocacy groups that are more concerned with their own relevance than with whether or not they do harm or not, and it's pretty clear that any solution should and must start from within ourselves (whether we're an individual or larger entity).
Speaking of solutions, the what-can-we-do part of the book also feels a little thin. It's both pretty vague and feels a bit rushed - but I think that's mostly because these are difficult tendencies and strategies to counter. Especially when the world just isn't as simple and uncomplicated as we'd generally like. Some of Naím's ideas for taking a stand against authoritarianism are undeniably good - like ranked choice voting (which should be relatively uncontroversial for anyone who's a fan of democracy) - some I would question or want more specifics on/about before passing judgement on. What's abundantly clear though, is that we do need to do something.
Criticisms notwithstanding, this is a very readable and, I think, important book. It's depressing and terrifying, and it's a reminder to remain vigilant, to champion democracy and its tenets. Despite its many flaws, it is the best we've got.
In that spirit, I'm going to finish this review with the same words I used in review of Anne Applebaum's book Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism - another book on this "cheerful" topic:
"Personally, despite a lot of negative trends, I believe there's hope for improvement. Something to fight for. And, on a basic level, a very clear path forward; open-mindedness.
Considering that, as Applebaum claims, '[g]iven the right conditions, any society can turn against democracy. Indeed, if history is anything to go by, all of our societies eventually will,' I think it relevant here, to channel our inner Dylan Thomas...
'Let's 'not go gentle into that good night,' let's 'rage, rage against the dying' democratic light."
Recommended.
June 25, 2022
I'm writing this on the day the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, which, although I'm not American, feels like a particularly heavy day to have finished a book on social and ethical regression.
Naim does a great job of describing the problem, overall, and I found his writing throughout most of the book a comprehensive and clear guide to our current situation, pulling together many threads beautifully. He criticizes authoritarian governments of any ideological stripe and illustrates the many similarities of governing styles between then, whether they are putatively communist or fascist (i.e. left or right). The many ways that a stable democracy also struggles to compete with authoritarianism on tactics (being slowed down by checks-and-balances and fact-checking, the need to compromise, how incremental progress is, and the possibility of being held accountable for crimes, etc.) are also delved into in some detail.
He is less clear or accurate on the sins of the 'good guys' -- many of the misinformation campaigns he cites from authoritarian regimes have parallels in democracies, particularly the USA, not to mention coups and destabilizations of other governments, sometimes replacing democracies with totalitarian states. So the moral and ethical lines are substantially more blurred than he describes.
The chapter on solutions was, likewise, short and lacking in detail. He proposes a few directions of "battles we must win" with a few general ideas about how they might be won, but it doesn't give the general reader much idea of what to press their elected representatives for or how to directly get involved.
Where I am, we have a fairly small number of aspiring 3P (populism, polarization, and post-truth) autocrats here in Canada, mostly on the right but some on the left as well, trying to ever further entrench their own 'fans' and followers into ideological purity and abstinence: our federal Conservative party is much too willing to be cozy with the 'freedom' convoy, the People's Party (a 3P hurricane) won a small number of votes and no seats but exists now which isn't great, and too many members of the NDP are willing to lie and drum up polarization in the hopes of electoral victories. I'm sure many of them think the ends justify the means here and they would only do good things with their victories, but I am not a fan. And on the municipal level, we also have some candidates --on the right and the left -- whipping up anti-political sentiment, pledging to 'drain the swamp' and 'fix city hall' by going to war with bureaucrats, stretching reality to outright lying, all to gain votes, and it is very worrying to me.
I hope we're able to stop this slide before we end up where we've seen others go.
Naim does a great job of describing the problem, overall, and I found his writing throughout most of the book a comprehensive and clear guide to our current situation, pulling together many threads beautifully. He criticizes authoritarian governments of any ideological stripe and illustrates the many similarities of governing styles between then, whether they are putatively communist or fascist (i.e. left or right). The many ways that a stable democracy also struggles to compete with authoritarianism on tactics (being slowed down by checks-and-balances and fact-checking, the need to compromise, how incremental progress is, and the possibility of being held accountable for crimes, etc.) are also delved into in some detail.
He is less clear or accurate on the sins of the 'good guys' -- many of the misinformation campaigns he cites from authoritarian regimes have parallels in democracies, particularly the USA, not to mention coups and destabilizations of other governments, sometimes replacing democracies with totalitarian states. So the moral and ethical lines are substantially more blurred than he describes.
The chapter on solutions was, likewise, short and lacking in detail. He proposes a few directions of "battles we must win" with a few general ideas about how they might be won, but it doesn't give the general reader much idea of what to press their elected representatives for or how to directly get involved.
Where I am, we have a fairly small number of aspiring 3P (populism, polarization, and post-truth) autocrats here in Canada, mostly on the right but some on the left as well, trying to ever further entrench their own 'fans' and followers into ideological purity and abstinence: our federal Conservative party is much too willing to be cozy with the 'freedom' convoy, the People's Party (a 3P hurricane) won a small number of votes and no seats but exists now which isn't great, and too many members of the NDP are willing to lie and drum up polarization in the hopes of electoral victories. I'm sure many of them think the ends justify the means here and they would only do good things with their victories, but I am not a fan. And on the municipal level, we also have some candidates --on the right and the left -- whipping up anti-political sentiment, pledging to 'drain the swamp' and 'fix city hall' by going to war with bureaucrats, stretching reality to outright lying, all to gain votes, and it is very worrying to me.
I hope we're able to stop this slide before we end up where we've seen others go.
November 15, 2022
This book is as fascinating as it is depressing. Don't read if your faith clings onto democracy and humanity.
June 9, 2022
I highly recommend this book because it clears up the fog of war in the battle of the mind. The global forces of malignant powder are marching again in the 21st century with new behaviors, new tools, new strategies and new playbooks. Naim says this force is the work of autocrats pushing; Populism, Polarization, and PostTruth. They take advantage of democracies weaknesses and capitalize on social trends of frustration and unrest.
A few tools are;
* pretense of being champions of the people. * anti-elite, anti-expert, anti-politicians. * messianic delivery and rhetoric. * Emphasize "We vs Them". * Spreads pseudo-science * Creates pseudo-laws.
Some of the most successful 3 P autocrats use marketing, advertising and branding to create Stardom and fandom much as sports and music idols: * publicity stunts * entertainment * political tribalism * ideology matters less than celebrity. * uses bragging. * egoism/narcisim * mockery.
Naim discusses how some 3 P states become Narco or Mafia states and even transnational cartels.
There are 5 battle to win for democracy: * against the big lie. * against criminal states. * against illigimate governments. *against autocracies that seek to undermine democracies. * against cartels.
Finally, Naim has solutions which he favors such as using Ranked Choice Voting and Citizens assemblies. Please read about how to save Democracies from those who seek Power at any cost and with no strings attached.
A few tools are;
* pretense of being champions of the people. * anti-elite, anti-expert, anti-politicians. * messianic delivery and rhetoric. * Emphasize "We vs Them". * Spreads pseudo-science * Creates pseudo-laws.
Some of the most successful 3 P autocrats use marketing, advertising and branding to create Stardom and fandom much as sports and music idols: * publicity stunts * entertainment * political tribalism * ideology matters less than celebrity. * uses bragging. * egoism/narcisim * mockery.
Naim discusses how some 3 P states become Narco or Mafia states and even transnational cartels.
There are 5 battle to win for democracy: * against the big lie. * against criminal states. * against illigimate governments. *against autocracies that seek to undermine democracies. * against cartels.
Finally, Naim has solutions which he favors such as using Ranked Choice Voting and Citizens assemblies. Please read about how to save Democracies from those who seek Power at any cost and with no strings attached.
May 11, 2022
Moisés Naím ha escrito un libro extraordinario, oportunísimo, preciso, urgente, importante y fácil de leer que recomiendo fuertemente para quien esté interesado en las amenazas para la libertad y la democracia que plantean las autocracias de nuevo cuño que están proliferando en muchos países (Rusia, China, Venezuela, Hungría, Polonia, Brasil, India, Filipinas, Israel, Bolivia, México, El Salvador, Siria, Egipto, Indonesia e Italia entre otros) en el mundo, asomándose para carcomer democracias liberales de pasado sólido incluyendo Estados Unidos y el Reino Unido. El libro está en la línea de los trabajos de Anne Applebaum, Timothy Snyder, Yascha Mounk, Mancur Olsen y Timothy Garton Ash. La primera parte del libro -imperdible y conformado por cuatro capítulos- es el corazón del libro, donde conceptualización, análisis y casos ilustrativos de todo el mundo se integran de manera sobresaliente. En esta parte propone que las autocracias más preocupantes se basan en tres maco-estrategias, a saber populismo, polarización y posverdad. Si bien hay una larga historia de populismo y polarización como estrategias políticas, lo novedoso es como se integran junto co una estrategia que buscar subjetivizar, relativizar, confundir, enredar y sembrar dudas sobre los hechos de manera que sea difícil distinguir la verdad de la falsedad.
La segunda parte consta de capítulos, que profundizan en algunos aspectos adicionales.
El capítulo 5 deja de lado el lado de las autocracias para tratar, muy brevemente, el poder ejercido por las gigantescas corporativas que dominan el siglo XXI -Naím nos recuerda que las cincuenta corporaciones más grandes tienen entradas equivalentes al 28% del PIB mundial. Se pregunta si el poder desmedido que parecen tener puede mantenerse en el tiempo. Este es el capítulo más débil del libro -Naím no logra integrarlo bien con el resto del libro, a pesar de que evidentemente este inmenso y a veces abusivo poder económico, social y político de estas empresas no pueden ignorarse en un libro como éste. Espero que Naím expanda este punto en un futuro escrito de manera de lograr desarrollar el tema como se merece y en el contexto que lo ha llevado a escribir sobre los abusos autocráticos.
El capítulo 6 trata la antipolítica, una fase inicial desplegada o aprovechada y potenciada por los nuevos autócratas en que se observan ya las tres macro-estrategias en que la desazón o insatisfacción con la política tradicional por parte de los votantes le proporciona una oportunidad de oro para que las promesas demagógicas y mesiánicas del futuro autócrata se dejan colar.
El siguiente capítulo trabaja en más profundidad el papel de los bulos y las grandes campañas y acciones de desinformación deplegadas por los regímenes autocráticos.
En el capítulo titulado Estados mafiosos y gobiernos criminales se analiza ya la situación abismal en que el regimen autocrático es a la vez un regimen criminal.
Otro capítulo extraordinario lo constituye el noveno capítulo dedicado a la red de alianzas que han tejido los gobiernos autocráticos. Los datos mencionados en el capítulo y el cuadro que retratan ponen los pelos de punta.
En el décimo capítulo, Naím pasa revista a cómo los regímenes autocráticos han aprovechado las circunstancias brindadas por la pandemia de COVID-19.
Para no limitarse al panorama desolador y angustiante que ha pintado hasta ahora, en el undécimo capítulo Naím advierte cuáles son, en su opinión, las cinco batallas que hay que dar para frenar y ojalá revertir la expansión de las autocracias. Dado el análisis anterior, las recomendaciones de Naím son a la vez evidentes, poco concretas y nada claros de cómo volverlas accionables. El epílogo continúa y cierra la línea planteada en el capítulo undécimo.
Considero que todo lector preocupado por el futuro de la democracia y la libertad debe leer esta obra de Naím -en mi opinión este nuevo libro es, junto con Ilícito, el mejor y más impactante de los libros escritos por este autor.
La segunda parte consta de capítulos, que profundizan en algunos aspectos adicionales.
El capítulo 5 deja de lado el lado de las autocracias para tratar, muy brevemente, el poder ejercido por las gigantescas corporativas que dominan el siglo XXI -Naím nos recuerda que las cincuenta corporaciones más grandes tienen entradas equivalentes al 28% del PIB mundial. Se pregunta si el poder desmedido que parecen tener puede mantenerse en el tiempo. Este es el capítulo más débil del libro -Naím no logra integrarlo bien con el resto del libro, a pesar de que evidentemente este inmenso y a veces abusivo poder económico, social y político de estas empresas no pueden ignorarse en un libro como éste. Espero que Naím expanda este punto en un futuro escrito de manera de lograr desarrollar el tema como se merece y en el contexto que lo ha llevado a escribir sobre los abusos autocráticos.
El capítulo 6 trata la antipolítica, una fase inicial desplegada o aprovechada y potenciada por los nuevos autócratas en que se observan ya las tres macro-estrategias en que la desazón o insatisfacción con la política tradicional por parte de los votantes le proporciona una oportunidad de oro para que las promesas demagógicas y mesiánicas del futuro autócrata se dejan colar.
El siguiente capítulo trabaja en más profundidad el papel de los bulos y las grandes campañas y acciones de desinformación deplegadas por los regímenes autocráticos.
En el capítulo titulado Estados mafiosos y gobiernos criminales se analiza ya la situación abismal en que el regimen autocrático es a la vez un regimen criminal.
Otro capítulo extraordinario lo constituye el noveno capítulo dedicado a la red de alianzas que han tejido los gobiernos autocráticos. Los datos mencionados en el capítulo y el cuadro que retratan ponen los pelos de punta.
En el décimo capítulo, Naím pasa revista a cómo los regímenes autocráticos han aprovechado las circunstancias brindadas por la pandemia de COVID-19.
Para no limitarse al panorama desolador y angustiante que ha pintado hasta ahora, en el undécimo capítulo Naím advierte cuáles son, en su opinión, las cinco batallas que hay que dar para frenar y ojalá revertir la expansión de las autocracias. Dado el análisis anterior, las recomendaciones de Naím son a la vez evidentes, poco concretas y nada claros de cómo volverlas accionables. El epílogo continúa y cierra la línea planteada en el capítulo undécimo.
Considero que todo lector preocupado por el futuro de la democracia y la libertad debe leer esta obra de Naím -en mi opinión este nuevo libro es, junto con Ilícito, el mejor y más impactante de los libros escritos por este autor.
April 1, 2022
This work from Dr. Naim, a former Minister of Trade and Industry for Venezuela, Director of their Central bank, and later the Executive Director of the World Bank, is a thoughtful portrait of the rise of autocratic leaders as they have helped shape the politics of our time. His focus is on 3Ps - populism, polarization, and post-truth. He highlights how the autocrats of the twenty-first century utilize the technological breakthroughs that were made possible by our open systems to upend democratic societies. Sadly this is even more amplified by the tremendous executive power extended to leaders in democracies during the global pandemic, many of which have experienced democratic decline. Sadly this trend is a continuation of the advances those opposed to liberal democracy have made over the past decade and half according to the democratic decline identified in the annual report from Freedom House. Overall, this book is a good one, but depressing read.
August 11, 2022
A clear, thorough, and thoughtful overview of the rise of 3P autocrats and would-be autocrats around the world—from Berluscone and Orban to Erdogan, Bolinsaro, and Trump—and the playbook these political operators use to gain and retain power through populism, polarization, and post-truth disinformation. My only compaints are that the book is at times repetitive and could have benefited from better editing—and that his prescriptions for how to preserve democracies against the all-out assaults they are currently experiencing are not as incisive as his diagnoses for why this is happening now. His descriptions of how democracies fare after 3P autocrats lose power (e.g. post-Berlusconi Italy) are not all that encouraging as he describes a continuing downward spiral into antipolitics, newer forms of populism, and worsening political fragmentation.
Want to read
May 22, 2023I was really looking forward to the content of this book based on the cover and inside cover. But I made it to page 10 before realizing that, despite the author writing that critiques are deserving across the political spectrum, he was unable to hold back biases to soberly assess his topic. If you loathe Trump or what he represents, this book is for you. If you love truth, there's probably some really good stuff in here, but I just don't want to spend my precious time in search of understanding reality by fighting off the concept that evil exists only in one corner.
January 27, 2023
Thorough analysis of the rise of global populism. It would've been 5 stars if the writing was less formulaic or equal attention was paid to the solutions section as others, which otherwise felt neglected.
November 8, 2022
Expone con datos y ejemplos históricos, como es que la libertad y democracia facilitan la prosperidad humana como jamás podrá la autocracia.
July 4, 2023
Naím’s book is both informational and easygoing. While I wish to challenge and uplift various aspects of the book, I also want to use this opportunity to respond to some of the other reviews I have seen that either miss the point or perform “what-about-ism.” But, before I begin, I want to note that this book has sat on my shelf for a minute, and I am glad I finally got around to it. But I would not have turned to this one next if it was not for Alastair Campbell and his new book, But What Can I Do.
First, the book itself. The writing is relaxed but with a heavy tone, making for a slow but elegant read as one digests the information on the page. Packed full of content, you reread passages, highlight sentences, and flag various pages to return to. At moments, the content is a bit much, but not in any way the fault of the writing. But that immense amount of information can be a bit dull in moments. You may be reading a section for a few minutes before you realize you have not internalized what the author has to say – so back a few pages you go and try again. The layout of the book is straightforward as well. But I believe the author shines most in his post-truth sections after covering populism and polarization. This is where Naím truly begins to add to the conversation with a uniqueness. For example, exploring pseudo-truths and exploiting circumstances is investigated by embracing malfunctioning systems while championing outsideness and antagonism. The examples are vast and plentiful, and even depressing. Overall, it makes for a educational and irritating read, because you will be mad at the fact that 3P autocratic behavior is not only difficult to suppress, but impossible to erase.
Where I uplift Naím’s book is his willingness to call it as it is – much of this can be witnessed in far-right, ultra-conservative circles—Trump, Johnson, Putin, Bolsonaro, Xi, Erdogan, Orban, and on and on. You cannot disagree that the tactics highlighted in the book are used predominately by autocrats from the extreme right flanks of their parties and systems. To deny such would be to engage in some of the same behaviors in the book. Often, I see a form of what-about-ism in response to these claims – “What about the leftist parties? They engage in these tactics as well!” I would agree with you but also argue that such a claim misses the entirety of the points being made. First, Naím does mention characters like Maduro, elected as part of a socialist platform, in addition to many more. If you critique the book for arguing it is unclear on its stance of leftist autocracy, you need to reread it. You have equated the increased use of right-wing autocratic examples in the book to mean that the author does not believe left-wing autocracies exist. You would have also fundamentally missed the point that these characteristics are, again, predominately, but not exclusively, used by extreme “right” politicians looking to grasp power through the 3Ps. I would also make an argument where Naím does not. A what-about-ism for leftist autocracies essentially grows out of the remnants of Cold War politics that instilled fears of dictatorships under any more-liberal policy agenda. This misconstrued teaching of what autocracy/dictatorship/socialism/communism truly is means that we often equate those so players like Maduro - something they are inherently not.
Returning to the book (my bad for ranting), there are also places I would like to challenge Naím, primarily in two areas. First, he uses COVID as an example of the reactionary consequences rather than the immediate impact. For instance, he says the future is more likely to remember the use of COVID to increase autocratic power rather than the failure of policy prevention and pandemic preparation. But I would disagree. The millions of deaths will inevitably force countries to constantly repair their broken preparedness systems. Companies’ refusal to share vaccine and immunization information will inevitably create pockets of resistance and turmoil in places that rely on international medical aid. The majority who lost loved ones and were disproportionately and immediately harmed will forever create an atmosphere of distrust and disgust around politicians and corporations that profited. I agree that COVID will be a political case study for generations to come, and it already is. Still, such a claim does not have to be rationalized with the casual dismissal of other aspects. While I also do not think the author’s intention was such, I would have expected more exploration in that final chapter on COVID before the conclusion. Second, Naím bases much of his racketeering argument on the work of Charles Tilly. This work claims that governments inherently are a coalition of mafia-like structures designed to profiteer and extrapolate from the work of those they rule. In my grad studies, I postulated that such a claim is very libertarian, and I stand by that. Primarily, it ignores the fact that the system is manipulated by autocrats looking to consolidate power – even though this is one of the central premises in The Revenge of Power. Tilly’s work also ignores those who operate within systems for the people, one of the sole purposes of many politicians in democratic societies. Of course, there are systems inherently designed to advantage autocrats, and like feedback loops, allow them to further corrupt the system in return (the United States being the clear example in my mind). But plenty also wish to improve the systems and unabashedly work for the people, not seeking to grasp power for personal profit. Ultimately, in pointing out these two thoughts, I want to push Naím. Can you elaborate on the consequences of COVID without dismissing other impacts? And why use a work that seems to contradict some of the arguments in your writing, and might you address the flaws of organized crime as state-making?
Overall, the book is a must-read. You can challenge specific assertions and be skeptical of the drawn sources, but ultimately, the author makes a good case and is unequivocal in his argument. Pieced with tons of information, this book is where I recommend you get bogged down in the specifics.
First, the book itself. The writing is relaxed but with a heavy tone, making for a slow but elegant read as one digests the information on the page. Packed full of content, you reread passages, highlight sentences, and flag various pages to return to. At moments, the content is a bit much, but not in any way the fault of the writing. But that immense amount of information can be a bit dull in moments. You may be reading a section for a few minutes before you realize you have not internalized what the author has to say – so back a few pages you go and try again. The layout of the book is straightforward as well. But I believe the author shines most in his post-truth sections after covering populism and polarization. This is where Naím truly begins to add to the conversation with a uniqueness. For example, exploring pseudo-truths and exploiting circumstances is investigated by embracing malfunctioning systems while championing outsideness and antagonism. The examples are vast and plentiful, and even depressing. Overall, it makes for a educational and irritating read, because you will be mad at the fact that 3P autocratic behavior is not only difficult to suppress, but impossible to erase.
Where I uplift Naím’s book is his willingness to call it as it is – much of this can be witnessed in far-right, ultra-conservative circles—Trump, Johnson, Putin, Bolsonaro, Xi, Erdogan, Orban, and on and on. You cannot disagree that the tactics highlighted in the book are used predominately by autocrats from the extreme right flanks of their parties and systems. To deny such would be to engage in some of the same behaviors in the book. Often, I see a form of what-about-ism in response to these claims – “What about the leftist parties? They engage in these tactics as well!” I would agree with you but also argue that such a claim misses the entirety of the points being made. First, Naím does mention characters like Maduro, elected as part of a socialist platform, in addition to many more. If you critique the book for arguing it is unclear on its stance of leftist autocracy, you need to reread it. You have equated the increased use of right-wing autocratic examples in the book to mean that the author does not believe left-wing autocracies exist. You would have also fundamentally missed the point that these characteristics are, again, predominately, but not exclusively, used by extreme “right” politicians looking to grasp power through the 3Ps. I would also make an argument where Naím does not. A what-about-ism for leftist autocracies essentially grows out of the remnants of Cold War politics that instilled fears of dictatorships under any more-liberal policy agenda. This misconstrued teaching of what autocracy/dictatorship/socialism/communism truly is means that we often equate those so players like Maduro - something they are inherently not.
Returning to the book (my bad for ranting), there are also places I would like to challenge Naím, primarily in two areas. First, he uses COVID as an example of the reactionary consequences rather than the immediate impact. For instance, he says the future is more likely to remember the use of COVID to increase autocratic power rather than the failure of policy prevention and pandemic preparation. But I would disagree. The millions of deaths will inevitably force countries to constantly repair their broken preparedness systems. Companies’ refusal to share vaccine and immunization information will inevitably create pockets of resistance and turmoil in places that rely on international medical aid. The majority who lost loved ones and were disproportionately and immediately harmed will forever create an atmosphere of distrust and disgust around politicians and corporations that profited. I agree that COVID will be a political case study for generations to come, and it already is. Still, such a claim does not have to be rationalized with the casual dismissal of other aspects. While I also do not think the author’s intention was such, I would have expected more exploration in that final chapter on COVID before the conclusion. Second, Naím bases much of his racketeering argument on the work of Charles Tilly. This work claims that governments inherently are a coalition of mafia-like structures designed to profiteer and extrapolate from the work of those they rule. In my grad studies, I postulated that such a claim is very libertarian, and I stand by that. Primarily, it ignores the fact that the system is manipulated by autocrats looking to consolidate power – even though this is one of the central premises in The Revenge of Power. Tilly’s work also ignores those who operate within systems for the people, one of the sole purposes of many politicians in democratic societies. Of course, there are systems inherently designed to advantage autocrats, and like feedback loops, allow them to further corrupt the system in return (the United States being the clear example in my mind). But plenty also wish to improve the systems and unabashedly work for the people, not seeking to grasp power for personal profit. Ultimately, in pointing out these two thoughts, I want to push Naím. Can you elaborate on the consequences of COVID without dismissing other impacts? And why use a work that seems to contradict some of the arguments in your writing, and might you address the flaws of organized crime as state-making?
Overall, the book is a must-read. You can challenge specific assertions and be skeptical of the drawn sources, but ultimately, the author makes a good case and is unequivocal in his argument. Pieced with tons of information, this book is where I recommend you get bogged down in the specifics.
Read
April 11, 2025While Naím's The End of Power (2013) had a mostly positive and optimistic tone, The Revenge of Power paints a much darker and more unsettling picture of the present and offers little hope for the future. What a time to... pick up this book.
August 9, 2024
Wonderfully written and very insightful book, with lots of examples from everywhere around the world. This book allows for a much better understanding of how politics are evolving and what needs to be done to defend basic democratic values. Recommended reading!
August 6, 2024
Most insightful book I’ve read this year.
January 3, 2023
The Revenge of Power is a sobering, well-researched account of how modern-day autocrats use populism, polarization, and post-truth to undermine democratic institutions and solidify personal power. Naim effectively shows how modern-day incarnations of autocrats (e.g., Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro, Chavez, etc.) use democratic tools to subvert democracy and remove checks and balances, unlike their 20th-century counterparts who were willing and able to rule through brute force. Naim is at his best when detailing the ways autocrats deploy the patina of democratic legitimacy to hollow out democracy from within. With populism, autocrats position themselves as battling elites within their countries. With polarization, autocrats disdain traditional compromise, ratchet up political battles, and hollow out the center. And with post-truth, autocrats muddy the waters with fear, uncertainty, and disinformation such that they cannot be held accountable by a contested “truth.” Particularly interesting was Naim’s recounting of the history of disinformation and how disinformation is considerably less expensive and more effective today than it was then. Whereas the Soviets needed to bribe journalists to push disinformation (e.g., HIV was a CIA bioweapon, the US faked the moon landing) in the Cold War with no guarantee the disinformation would reach a broad audience, Putin and other autocrats today merely need to tweet or spread through Whatsapp outlandish claims to reach an unheard-of audience. Where the book falls short is that Naim offers few solutions—or at least few solutions that do not have their own drawbacks (e.g., regulating speech).
December 13, 2022
Many put comments of all kinds on this page that imply a fight to the death between the left and the right. Is this a correct point of view or is it outdated?
According to Moisés Naím the problem is between democracy and autocracy.
A democracy has ways of getting ahead, of choosing new rulers, of changing course, of learning sometimes by trial and error.
But when an autocratic leader seizes power, he tries to stay in power through three steps:
Populism: saying things that people want to hear, even if they are not true or cannot be fulfilled (sell a presidential plane, lower gasoline, etc.)
Polarization: inventing an enemy (fifis, foreigners, etc.)
Post-truth: making the truth and the lie confuse, as López does in Mexico and Trump did in the US.
The book says little about Mexico, focusing mainly on the United States (Trump), Italy (Berlusconi), Russia (Putin), Hungary, Venezuela, El Salvador and so many countries that were destroyed by autocrats.
It is sad to see examples like Argentina, which 100 years ago had a per capita income similar to that of France, and today it does not even reach its heels.
How to prevent autocrats from taking power? read the excellent advice in the book, and I recommend that members of the political parties who are against the autocrat read it... hopefully someone can recommend it to them.
According to Moisés Naím the problem is between democracy and autocracy.
A democracy has ways of getting ahead, of choosing new rulers, of changing course, of learning sometimes by trial and error.
But when an autocratic leader seizes power, he tries to stay in power through three steps:
Populism: saying things that people want to hear, even if they are not true or cannot be fulfilled (sell a presidential plane, lower gasoline, etc.)
Polarization: inventing an enemy (fifis, foreigners, etc.)
Post-truth: making the truth and the lie confuse, as López does in Mexico and Trump did in the US.
The book says little about Mexico, focusing mainly on the United States (Trump), Italy (Berlusconi), Russia (Putin), Hungary, Venezuela, El Salvador and so many countries that were destroyed by autocrats.
It is sad to see examples like Argentina, which 100 years ago had a per capita income similar to that of France, and today it does not even reach its heels.
How to prevent autocrats from taking power? read the excellent advice in the book, and I recommend that members of the political parties who are against the autocrat read it... hopefully someone can recommend it to them.
August 19, 2022
In The Revenge of Power, author Moises Naím looks at the recent global trends in autocracy, and the threats to democracy which that brings. He refers frequently to what he calls the "3 P's", i.e., Populism, Polarization, and Post-truths, and how these common strategies have come into play in such diverse locations as Venezuela, Hungary, India, Brazil, Turkey, Russia, the Philippines, and the U.S.
He also offers concluding thoughts about what can be done to ensure that freedom and democracy prevail. As he and others have pointed out, there are many examples where democracies have become susceptible to authoritarians, and it's important to persuade people to recognize it and resist it. Otherwise, evidence shows that autocrats and demagogues exploit the openness of democratic cultures and turn people against the institutions and policies that sustain democracy itself.
When leaders demonstrate an attitude that they're above the law, personally attack and punish political opponents, work to amass and centralize power, to weaken institutions, and to prioritize personal gains over the general welfare, democracy becomes seriously weakened and may not recover.
He also offers concluding thoughts about what can be done to ensure that freedom and democracy prevail. As he and others have pointed out, there are many examples where democracies have become susceptible to authoritarians, and it's important to persuade people to recognize it and resist it. Otherwise, evidence shows that autocrats and demagogues exploit the openness of democratic cultures and turn people against the institutions and policies that sustain democracy itself.
When leaders demonstrate an attitude that they're above the law, personally attack and punish political opponents, work to amass and centralize power, to weaken institutions, and to prioritize personal gains over the general welfare, democracy becomes seriously weakened and may not recover.
May 28, 2022
The author pointed out in the last book that power is becoming more distributed, with the public trusting public institutions less. Of course 3P rulers must strike back. Who are they?
Populism: promising to take on corrupt elites for the downtrodden (Trump MAGA)
Polarisation: social media and internet allows extreme polarisation (resounding bubble)
Post-truth: not mere lying. It’s a whole build up of deception by a state actor meant to undermine the belief of citizens of rival country (Putin and his anti-Clinton bots)
Using Stealth to rise to power, 3P rulers then change the constitution, appoint friendly judges, and take over the media. Then they crush their opponents. Then they create a cult-like aura about them. Voila! An autocrat is born!
Nice book, although some parts like big tech feels not to the point. Nonetheless I like it.
Populism: promising to take on corrupt elites for the downtrodden (Trump MAGA)
Polarisation: social media and internet allows extreme polarisation (resounding bubble)
Post-truth: not mere lying. It’s a whole build up of deception by a state actor meant to undermine the belief of citizens of rival country (Putin and his anti-Clinton bots)
Using Stealth to rise to power, 3P rulers then change the constitution, appoint friendly judges, and take over the media. Then they crush their opponents. Then they create a cult-like aura about them. Voila! An autocrat is born!
Nice book, although some parts like big tech feels not to the point. Nonetheless I like it.
August 28, 2022
Прекрасная книга про автократов и автократию ...
Автор показал "большую" картинку, взгляд на автократию как на явление
Вот именно для такого понимания и прозрения и нужны книги, что бы понимать явление.
Конечно меня поразило про использование интернета в помощь автократом.
Все время вспоминаю, как сложно было в СССР распространять любую несанкционированную информацию ( ксероксы на перечит (я все же про поздний Совок), пишущие машинки все на перечет) ну и чего боялась Власть? Распространения информации???? Ну и вот вам, пожалуйста - Интернет, распространяй - не хочу!!!!! И это так казалось ...
Книга оязательна для прочтения всем будущим автократам!
Автор показал "большую" картинку, взгляд на автократию как на явление
Вот именно для такого понимания и прозрения и нужны книги, что бы понимать явление.
Конечно меня поразило про использование интернета в помощь автократом.
Все время вспоминаю, как сложно было в СССР распространять любую несанкционированную информацию ( ксероксы на перечит (я все же про поздний Совок), пишущие машинки все на перечет) ну и чего боялась Власть? Распространения информации???? Ну и вот вам, пожалуйста - Интернет, распространяй - не хочу!!!!! И это так казалось ...
Книга оязательна для прочтения всем будущим автократам!
August 5, 2022
terrifying! and motivating for responsible citizen activism
This book was sobering and terrifying all at once. I was grateful that Naim laid out the playbook of rising autocrats around the world (Trump, Putin) and how important it is for each of us to help move the public discourse beyond populism, polarisation, and post-truth. One of the most important books I have read this year.
This book was sobering and terrifying all at once. I was grateful that Naim laid out the playbook of rising autocrats around the world (Trump, Putin) and how important it is for each of us to help move the public discourse beyond populism, polarisation, and post-truth. One of the most important books I have read this year.
November 16, 2022
Fascinating and well researched, but equally scary. Really helps to better understand some of the tactics used in the last few decades to push more autocrats politics. Yes it’s dry and felt quite long winded in places, but the three Ps categorisations are really important to understand
January 21, 2023
This should be mandatory reading for all moderate and liberal politicians. Moises Naim gives an insight into the birth of Trump’s post-truth administration and the worldwide attack by 3P autocrats on democracy.
September 13, 2022
Una de las mejores lecturas del año. Muy relevante para entender a las autocracias y populistas del siglo 21.
March 30, 2024
We truly live in troubled times. You wouldn’t think the autocrat would come back with everything we know about where that path leads but there’s a reason they say that history repeats itself.
December 13, 2024
Intervalový tréning mozgu a emócií. Zaručene sa vám dvihnú tepy počas čítania o tom ako jednoducho sa ničí demokracia v slobodnom svete klamstvami a mediálnym divadlom. Pravda bude nedostatkový tovar, ktorý vlastne už ani nik nebude chcieť pretože je nudná a nepáči sa. Neobracajme sa k politike chrbtom lebo nám tam vrazí nôž.
Pár úrývkov na zamyslenie (ak vôbec chcete myslieť):
Populizmus. Polarizácia. Postpravda.
Tak ako je pokrytectvo poctou, ktorú hriech skladá cnosti, trojpéčková moc sa ochotne sklania pred demokraciou, ktorú rozkladá.
Keď sa politika zmení na rýdzu zábavu, ľudia si k politickým lídrom začnú tvoriť podobný vzťah ako k svojím obľúbeným zabávačom a športovým hviezdam. Kľúčová otázka už neznie “Ako im to ide?” ale “Kto vyhráva?”.
Hannah Arendt v roku 1951 ako prvá upozornila, že keď sa k moci dostane totalitarizmus bez ohľadu na ich sympatie nahradí všetkých prvotriednych odborníkov šarlatánmi a hlupákmi, lebo nedostatok inteligencie a tvorivosti je najlepšou zárukou ich vernosti.
Spoločnosť, ktorá sa nezhodne na vecných základoch diskusie či rozhodovania nemôže napredovať. Bez spoločnej zhody na tom čo je pravda a čo nie, nemôžu existovať zákony, voľby, vlády, veda ani demokracia. Samozrejme spoločné vnímanie základných faktov je len začiatok. Ani spoločnosti bez nezávislého zdroja kritiky kontroly nieje čo závidieť.
Dnes nepotrebujú staromódnu cenzúru ani prísne filtrovanie informácií, ktoré sa dostanú k ľuďom. Radšej sa spoliehajú na pravý opak: ich stratégiou je zaplaviť ľudí takou masou informácií, že už samotný objem znemožní kriticky vyhodnotiť ich obsah. Vplyv tých informácií sa nevídaným spôsobom zvyšuje keď ich počítač vyberá na základe presvedčenia, predsudkov a preferencií adresáta.
Olson vraví, že pri absencií vlády vzniká mocenské vákuum, ktoré vždy vyplnia ambiciózny ľudia a stávajú sa “potulnými banditmi“. Túlajú sa z jednej oblasti do druhej, kradnú, lúpia a rabujú. Keď sú banditi v pohybe, stimulujú ich priam zúfalo prízemné potreby: privlastniť si toho čo najviac bez ohľadu na mieru potrebného násilia. Predstavme si však mimoriadne úspešného banditu, ktorého unavil život na konskom chrbte a rozhodol sa usadiť. Bezmedzné okrádanie ľudí, nad ktorými teraz panuje sa čoskoro ukáže ako škodlivé: pomrú od hladu a už im nebude mať čo ukradnúť. Keď sa bandita usídli na jednom mieste, čoskoro pochopí, prečo je rozumné ponúknuť ľuďom zmes ochrany a zdierania: ochranu od ostatných potulných banditov, ktorý ho ponovom ohrozujú, a zdieranie v podobe pravidelných násilím vybraných poplatkov, ktorým v slušných kruhoch prischne označenie “zdaňovanie“.
Pár úrývkov na zamyslenie (ak vôbec chcete myslieť):
Populizmus. Polarizácia. Postpravda.
Tak ako je pokrytectvo poctou, ktorú hriech skladá cnosti, trojpéčková moc sa ochotne sklania pred demokraciou, ktorú rozkladá.
Keď sa politika zmení na rýdzu zábavu, ľudia si k politickým lídrom začnú tvoriť podobný vzťah ako k svojím obľúbeným zabávačom a športovým hviezdam. Kľúčová otázka už neznie “Ako im to ide?” ale “Kto vyhráva?”.
Hannah Arendt v roku 1951 ako prvá upozornila, že keď sa k moci dostane totalitarizmus bez ohľadu na ich sympatie nahradí všetkých prvotriednych odborníkov šarlatánmi a hlupákmi, lebo nedostatok inteligencie a tvorivosti je najlepšou zárukou ich vernosti.
Spoločnosť, ktorá sa nezhodne na vecných základoch diskusie či rozhodovania nemôže napredovať. Bez spoločnej zhody na tom čo je pravda a čo nie, nemôžu existovať zákony, voľby, vlády, veda ani demokracia. Samozrejme spoločné vnímanie základných faktov je len začiatok. Ani spoločnosti bez nezávislého zdroja kritiky kontroly nieje čo závidieť.
Dnes nepotrebujú staromódnu cenzúru ani prísne filtrovanie informácií, ktoré sa dostanú k ľuďom. Radšej sa spoliehajú na pravý opak: ich stratégiou je zaplaviť ľudí takou masou informácií, že už samotný objem znemožní kriticky vyhodnotiť ich obsah. Vplyv tých informácií sa nevídaným spôsobom zvyšuje keď ich počítač vyberá na základe presvedčenia, predsudkov a preferencií adresáta.
Olson vraví, že pri absencií vlády vzniká mocenské vákuum, ktoré vždy vyplnia ambiciózny ľudia a stávajú sa “potulnými banditmi“. Túlajú sa z jednej oblasti do druhej, kradnú, lúpia a rabujú. Keď sú banditi v pohybe, stimulujú ich priam zúfalo prízemné potreby: privlastniť si toho čo najviac bez ohľadu na mieru potrebného násilia. Predstavme si však mimoriadne úspešného banditu, ktorého unavil život na konskom chrbte a rozhodol sa usadiť. Bezmedzné okrádanie ľudí, nad ktorými teraz panuje sa čoskoro ukáže ako škodlivé: pomrú od hladu a už im nebude mať čo ukradnúť. Keď sa bandita usídli na jednom mieste, čoskoro pochopí, prečo je rozumné ponúknuť ľuďom zmes ochrany a zdierania: ochranu od ostatných potulných banditov, ktorý ho ponovom ohrozujú, a zdieranie v podobe pravidelných násilím vybraných poplatkov, ktorým v slušných kruhoch prischne označenie “zdaňovanie“.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 3, 2024
This is fairly simplistic book meant for a reader who hasn't been following world affairs during the last decade or so. I finished it, but it was largely a rehash of information and opinion I already knew. The author is annoyingly centrist and views things as a neoliberal. That isn't to say that what he is saying is in anyway wrong. It's not. There is a lot of stuff in here. It works just fine as a refresher, but it doesn't contain many new insights. It's observation is ultimately "Populism is out there, it's bad, but hopefully everyone will soon come back to trust the elites once again."
December 5, 2024
Well researched and very easy to read. Naím does a good job of highlighting the differences between 20th century autocracies and 21st century autocracies; the issue is that there really isn't any new insight in this book. The information presented is beneficial, but I wish it went a bit further than simply presenting the playbook that most autocrats seem to use.
July 12, 2025
De una forma bien estructurada, Moisés Naim muestra a pleno detalle la presencia de las nuevas formas de poder en el mundo. Presenta como un enemigo silencioso, ataca desde adentro y desestabiliza a la sociedad de forma sigilosa, pero no menos despiadada. A forma de ensayo, muestra las bases para tratar contra dicho enemigo, que poco a poco hace peligrar a las democracias.
November 13, 2024
This book came at just the right time for me (Elections in the US). As a non-native English speaker, I enjoyed the opportunity to engage with advanced vocabulary throughout. Chapter summaries at the end of each section would have been a welcome addition, reinforcing the main points, though.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews