ARGUMENT: Confrontational politicsPandemic Consequences: The Acceleration of Confrontational Politics

Published 21 December 2020

Soon after the coronavirus began spreading widely around the world, a dominant narrative emerged about its likely effect on global politics: the pandemic would reinforce autocratic governance. Thomas Carothers and Benjamin Press write in Just Security that, indeed, dozens of authoritarian or authoritarian-leaning leaders, from Cambodia to Hungary, quickly seized the moment to amass more power, undercut institutional checks and balances, and restrict citizen freedoms in ways that exceeded public-health necessity. But “almost a year in, another critical trend has become apparent: contrary to the hopes of some observers, the pandemic is also fueling the longer-term ascendancy of confrontational politics,” they write.

Soon after the coronavirus began spreading widely around the world, a dominant narrative emerged about its likely effect on global politics: the pandemic would reinforce autocratic governance. Thomas Carothers and Benjamin Press write in Just Security that, indeed, dozens of authoritarian or authoritarian-leaning leaders, from Cambodia to Hungary, quickly seized the moment to amass more power, undercut institutional checks and balances, and restrict citizen freedoms in ways that exceeded public-health necessity.

Accurate though this narrative proved to be, they write, it is an incomplete picture of the pandemic’s political impact. Almost a year in, another critical trend has become apparent: contrary to the hopes of some observers, the pandemic is also fueling the longer-term ascendancy of confrontational politics.

They add:

The temperature of politics has risen steadily in many countries during the past decade. This trend has manifested itself in three main ways: a historic rise in the number of major antigovernment protests; heightened political polarization; and the spread of disruptive, often highly conflictive populism. Driven by the perception of many citizens worldwide that existing political arrangements and institutions – and too many of their leaders – are profoundly flawed, these confrontational strategies became effectively mainstreamed in places where they were once exceptional. This has shaken democracies and autocracies alike, evidenced, for example, by the emergence of illiberal leadership in the United States and India and the jolting of strongman regimes in Belarus and Sudan.

Initially many observers across different regions hoped that the devastating health crisis would reduce political confrontation as governments and societies focused on battling it rather than each other. But, after nearly a year of life under the pandemic, these early hopes have not materialized. After a lull of a few months early in the year, protests have surged. Most countries that went into the pandemic with polarized politics find themselves even more divided today. And few populists have taken a serious political hit for their ineffectual responses to the pandemic; some, like President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, have even gained ground.

Confrontational political dynamics have proven to be highly resilient, adapting to the pandemic and, in turn, being reinforced by it. Going forward, the disruptive potential of ever more confrontational politics will remain a core challenge to political stability as the world staggers toward post-pandemic life.