Bankruptcy of Western liberalism Belarus analyst on Caliber.Az

On February 8, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz went on a visit abroad. He had a lot to talk to American President Biden about besides financing the war with Russia from the leaky budgets of both countries. Both the top brass of the US global hegemon and the leaders of the European hegemon Germany's biggest problem at the moment is not Russia or China at all.

In both countries, the political establishment fears being swept away by rapidly rising opponents. Moreover, these opponents threaten to reshape the entire political landscape of the past decades. Washington and Berlin are thinking of extreme measures - banning these political forces, followed by repressive measures. An independent judiciary will not fail.

US: Talking to the dead

It's a big deal: the upcoming US elections will hit the global liberal establishment in an unprecedented way even at any outcome. The only question is the scale of the problems. In fact, the elections have already begun when the Democratic Party bet on the re-election of Joe Biden. A man, who, owing to his advanced age, has previously made statements and taken actions that prompted doubts about the soundness of his cognitive abilities, managed to further highlight this trend just this week. Biden, at two different important campaign fundraisers, recounted how he had conversations a couple of years ago with the then long-deceased French President Mitterrand and German Chancellor Kohl. However, it's worth noting that he mistakenly referred to both as German leaders and later confused Mexico with Egypt. In addition, on February 9, the US Justice Department released a document in which it stated that although Biden had indeed illegally kept mountains of classified documents at his home (in Afghanistan), he was not guilty because his memory is limited - in particular, during interrogations he could not even remember when his second son died, when he himself was vice president and when his term of office ends.

Americans are actually being offered to vote for a "pig in a poke", since Biden, already during his current term, due to his incomplete capacity, has clearly delegated too much to people "behind his back" - officials of his administration. In the future, the scale of these shadow processes will only increase. This is obvious enough to harm the image of the Democrats.

But that's not the worst of it. What is more dangerous for liberals is that even if re-elected, Biden will be dealing with a divided country. And the splits are deep: the recent events in Texas have shown that. The Texas events were hastily dismissed - they said that after the rejection of racial segregation, there were also clashes between the federal authorities and the leadership of some states with the participation of law enforcement officers. True, but at that time the regional opposition did not have serious support throughout the country and there was no movement like the Trumpists.

Well, the worst thing for Washington politicians is that if Trump wins, after all the misfortunes of recent years, he and his supporters are unlikely to be inclined to coexist peacefully with the "old-regime" establishment. They will certainly try to do everything to prevent such persecutions from happening again, and will start cleansing the political field of opponents. And this promises problems for liberal circles both inside the United States and in pro-American countries around the world, even regardless of other possible radical political decisions by Trump.

In short, the current liberal establishment loses at any odds, but if Trump wins, it is in danger of disaster. Therefore, they hope to stop him by any means necessary, because it would be fatal to allow him to get to a fair election.

One of the main hopes of Trump's foes - the latest alternative Republican candidate to him - failed on February 8. Nikki Haley managed to fail in the Nevada primary intraparty election, being the only candidate on the ballot! She certainly couldn't become a full-fledged Republican candidate, but she would certainly put a stick in Trump's wheel.

Therefore, the only solution is an injunction against Donald Trump's participation in the election. It has already begun to be tested at the state level, and on February 6 - miraculously coinciding with the failure in Nevada - the campaign continued to be taken to the federal level, signalling the intention to blame Trump for the protests of his supporters against the results of the 2020 election.

There can be no doubt that such a ban will eventually be implemented - the notorious independence of the judiciary should not mislead anyone. What this independence is worth when it comes to the interests of the ruling elite can be seen in the scandals involving the son of the current president, Hunter Biden. New and new criminal cases have been opened against him for four years, but they have not yielded any results yet, although it is getting ridiculous - a couple of weeks ago investigators even found videos of him weighing and consuming drugs, although he swore that he did not do it.

That is, the question is not the feasibility of Trump's injunction. The question is the price that the ruling circles will have to pay for it. The storming of American government buildings in January 2021 by Trump supporters has already shown that it could be high. Under normal circumstances, such a risky option with a ban would not be considered, but now the issue is existential for the American liberal establishment. No price is too high when it comes to survival.

The "alternative" is worse than the "Russian threat"

The German establishment faces a similar dilemma. Despite all the differences in details, it too will have to answer the question "To be or not to be" in the face of a challenge to its own dominance shortly. And it is not about the "Russian threat". Berlin's politicians talk about it endlessly on all public platforms. But they have other worries on their minds - the challenge posed to them by the far-right Alternative for Germany movement, which makes no secret of its intentions to reshape the political system in the country.

The problem did not arise recently, but from its very foundation in 2013, the ruling circles of all political colours hoped that Alternative would collapse on its own - which was not surprising, given the motley nature and scandalous nature of the association itself. Then the security services were brought into play, which eventually began to openly monitor the legal party entering the parliament. All this time, the other establishment parties ignored the Alternative, not accepting it as part of the ruling coalitions at any level of government.

But the "Alternative" has only grown and now sits in the parliaments of 14 of the 16 lands of Germany. Its boycott is already creating problems in the creation of governing coalitions. That is why, despite the fantastic anti—records of the popularity of the current German government, even the systemic opposition in the form of the Christian Democrats does not want early elections and a change of cabinet, since the next vote will almost inevitably mean a new strengthening of the "Alternative" and unclear prospects for everyone else. Moreover, with such growth rates and with the current economic trends continuing, at the next elections to the German parliament in 2025, the "alternates" may "take out" their opponents and it will not be possible to create a government without their participation at all. In 2021, the party received 10% of the vote in the elections to the national parliament, and last autumn in the regional elections, away from the main areas of its support — in Hesse – already more than 18%. That is, it already has a quarter of the electorate in the national elections.

It is not only the German establishment that does not want to surrender Berlin to the "Alternative". The liberal elites in the EU and the US do not intend to allow this either. We are talking, recall, about a country that has always been the economic locomotive of the EU, and after the UK left the European Union, it became practically its political hegemon. Recently, Germany has been successfully competing with Poland for the right to become a European hegemon in the military field, launching a giant program of rearmament of the army and coming in second place in terms of contribution to the military efforts of Ukraine.

So far, the German leadership expects that the newly organized left-wing party of Sarah Wagenknecht will be able to attract some of the support of the "Alternative". Such hopes have been pinned on Sarah as a weapon against the "Alternative" for a long time — that's why she got away with her critical statements about Berlin's policy towards the Russian-Ukrainian war, and playing with the protest electorate - seemingly against the establishment. But, judging by the ratings, she has attracted the electorate of the disintegrating left and Social Democrats rather than the radical right-wing anti-systemic opposition.

This means that the Alternative will have to be banned. Parties have been banned in Germany more than once, but never before has it been about such a large one (second place in the ratings) and influencing government agencies (judging by the facts that have emerged) and, probably, law enforcement agencies. Considering that the year before last, the preparation of an armed coup by ideologically close to the Alternative right-wing extremists was revealed in the country, including from among the former security forces with a huge arsenal of weapons and ammunition, one can imagine the risk of pushing an additional mass of such activists out of the legal field. But, as in America, despite all the risks, the situation may not leave the ruling circles of Germany with any other solution.

It is not only the German establishment that does not want to surrender Berlin to "Alternative". The liberal elites in the EU and the United States do not intend to let this happen either. We are talking about the country, which has always been the economic locomotive of the EU, and after the UK's exit from the European Union it became its political hegemon. Recently, Germany has been successfully competing with Poland for the right to become a European hegemon in the military field as well, having launched a gigantic programme to rearm the army and becoming the second largest contributor to Ukraine's military efforts.

So far, the German leadership expects that the newly organized left-wing party of Sarah Wagenknecht will be able to attract some of the support of the "Alternative". Such hopes have been pinned on Sarah as a weapon against the "Alternative" for a long time — that's why she got away with her critical statements about Berlin's policy towards the Russian-Ukrainian war, and playing with the protest electorate - seemingly against the establishment. But, judging by the ratings, she has attracted the electorate of the disintegrating left and Social Democrats rather than the radical right-wing anti-systemic opposition.

Fifty shades of grey

The simultaneous identical crises in two key Western countries previously known for their stability are not a coincidence. They are indeed linked due to the close integration of the establishment and the close political, economic and cultural relations of the Western countries. Political practices and institutions throughout the "collective West" increasingly resemble the American model.

Serious internal problems do not only occur in Germany and the US. It is just that in other EU-NATO countries they are different from the two crises described above. But even there, internal splits are maturing and bitterness is growing - it is enough to recall how, having barely managed to win in Poland, the liberals immediately set about purging the losing conservatives and jailed former Interior Ministry leaders, and when they went on hunger strike - not believing in an independent investigation and court, the independent court ordered force-feeding.

Therefore, the Western political landscape can be described as literally fifty shades of the same colour. From time to time, the emerging anti-systemic opposition movements were mostly drowned out through the pressure of the mainstream media and, if necessary, the intervention of the security services.

In the process of this supposed rise of the liberal camp, it began to lose its own ideological foundations. Having criticised half the world for the lack of pluralism, already in the late 2000s the Western establishment began to lose the ability to hear anyone but itself and the apologists of its own ideas - elegantly called "independent civil society", "human rights community", etc. - that it had cultivated.

In the 2010s, the changes went even faster. The global "spirit of the times" had its effect. And this, let us recall, was artificially pumped up euphoria from the "Arab Spring" - it was presented as another confirmation of the innate desire of every person for liberal ideas, saying that even in non-Western societies there can be resistance to "dictatorial regimes" in the name of the same liberal ideas. However, it soon became clear that the resistance relied on the fighters of picturesque Salafist groups, and countries in the course of such experiments turned into a pile of ruins and bloody mincemeat. Then came the second Maidan, accompanied by similar rhetoric. If we remember what was said about it in the West at that time, there was a noticeable "dizziness from success" - allegedly liberal slogans managed to pull the largest European country to their side, even despite all its ties with Russia. Having ridden this artificially created wave, liberals thought they had caught God by the beard and rushed to put an end to world history, not only destroying illiberal regimes abroad, but also cleaning up the political field inside their countries.

As a result, by the end of the 2010s, the Western establishment had changed beyond recognition. I remember being at a conference of NGO representatives at the Chatham House, the British government's main think tank, in the summer of 2018, where they were discussing methods of combating media falsification. And at one point, the discussion turned to the fact that there are many opinions about Russia's actions, and that all "democrats" should consolidate and say one thing.

Having seen such gatherings in the 2000s, I first thought that the speaker would be reprimanded, saying that Putin has one opinion in the media, while here we have pluralism and, in general, a free press will expose all the Kremlin's intrigues on its own. But the audience took up the offer. Today, when the situation on both sides of the confrontation differs only in that in Russia the websites of the opposite side are blocked openly, and in the West - even without explanations, that London conference is already surprising.

Is it possible for liberal democracy to exist without some form of repression?

Having weeded out their rivals from the political field, the liberal elites themselves could no longer cope with the minimal responsibilities of public administration. The consequences were not long in coming: expressive minority governments have become the norm in Western countries.

This is not surprising, since even in a critical situation at the global level, liberal elites (though they are not the only ones) have proven incapable of effective action, as the crisis during the coronavirus pandemic demonstrated. World powers failed to cooperate on the issue of vaccines, and vaccines themselves became politicised. The measures taken often exacerbated the problem, as they were taken in accordance with the tenets of liberal ideology (notorious "political correctness") rather than expert advice.

As a result, the economic consequences of "pandemic control" continue to unfold: the wave of bankruptcies that began at that time has not stopped and may soon spill over to agriculture in the EU due to the removal of subsidies.

The liberal dogmatism of Western elites at the time of the pandemic also laid the foundations for the current global confrontation and bloodshed in Eastern Europe. Refusing - for purely ideological reasons - to close borders within the EU, they simultaneously closed them along the bloc's borders, thereby unprecedentedly severing human ties in the most conflict-prone areas, as well as losing access to information about what is happening "on the other side".

Those preventable mistakes were made by the people who are mostly still in power, and therefore one can imagine how they will deal with internal political problems. Let us not, of course, gloat; bans and repression are, alas, an integral part of any state and, as the Georgian criminal authority, theatre scholar and politician Jaba Iosseliani noted: "Democracy is not like eating lobio.

The racist and Islamophobic "Alternative for Germany" really does not do Germany any good, and it is impossible to feel sorry for it. But aren't these the very same Western politicians who criticised any state that they didn't like, who tried to restore order and were forced to limit the participation of some anti-system forces in elections or to arrest those who tried to collapse the state system? And did not these very liberal elites, through their rule and their growing intolerance of sane alternative ideas on the right and left, drive citizens who were disillusioned with politics into the "Alternative" camp, and should be asked first and foremost?

Militant liberal dogmatism has driven the West not just to hypocrisy in its desire to meddle in the internal affairs of everyone and everything, doing at home what it forbids others to do. It has driven it to the bankruptcy of liberal political models, which have betrayed even their constituencies and their ideology - which had reasonable messages like "freedom is always freedom to differ" - and have launched crusades to spread their liberal creed across the planet.