Trump’s Return: Global Authoritarianism and Armenia’s Struggle for Democracy

Trump’s Return: Global Authoritarianism and Armenia’s Struggle for Democracy

21.11.2024

 

By Karena Avedissian

 

When Donald Trump won the presidential election in 2016, I was devastated––I didn’t get out of bed for two days, so unfathomable was the idea that an autocratic-minded serial sexual assaulter would be leading the U.S. After this election, however, despite the specter of harsher right-wing policies, accelerated dismantling of democratic institutions, and long-term harm to vulnerable communities, I got up and went to work as usual.

 

For a long time, but particularly since 2016, America’s democracy has been showing signs of deep dysfunction and fundamental flaws. The social safety net has eroded, destabilizing lives as housing and food costs rise, wages stagnate, and job security weakens. Meanwhile, the U.S. funds violent conflicts abroad, including Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians, sustained by American military aid. Women’s and LGBTQ+ rights are under threat, while police budgets grow at the expense of social programs.

 

The establishment Democratic Party, which purports to offer an alternative to this reality––has failed to grasp changing global and domestic dynamics, articulate a vision that addresses these shifts, or meet the needs of a wide range of Americans. And it’s their failure to see the deep cultural divide – those of social liberals and social conservatives – and how these values become support for authoritarian-populists all over the world has brought us to this moment.

 

America is not an outlier. Disillusioned electorates and democratic backsliding are on the rise worldwide. In 2022, Italy elected far-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, from a party with neo-fascist roots. That same year, Marine Le Pen secured around 40% of the vote in France, improving on her 2017 performance, while in Sweden, a far-right party became the second-largest in parliament.

 

Countries like Armenia, with fledgling democracies heavily reliant on Western support for democratic development, are particularly vulnerable to the ripple effects of democratic decline in the West. Domestically, Armenia is already showing some of the same troubling warning signs seen there. For decades, the West has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into strengthening political parties, supporting grassroots NGOs, and empowering women to run for office in developing democracies—an approach that has been crucial in contexts with limited local funding.

 

However, the growing instability and volatility of Western democracies make it increasingly clear that countries like Armenia cannot depend on external support alone to build resilient democratic institutions.

 

Apathy’s Toll: How “Lesser Evil” Politics Erode Democracy

 

Trump may have won the election, but it’s perhaps more accurate to view this as a loss for Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party, whose leadership has struggled to address the material challenges that impact Americans daily, and relying on identity-focused messaging (“we’re not the cartoonishly evil party!”) instead of advocating for substantial change. This “lesser evil” approach, without a compelling platform, has failed to energize voters, resulting in apathy and lower turnout in 2024 compared to 2020.

 

This situation bears a resemblance to Pashinyan’s approach in Armenia. Being marginally more acceptable than Armenia’s former, corrupt regimes is insufficient to inspire voters for long. Political apathy in Armenia is at record highs; a recent IRI survey showed that nearly two-thirds of Armenian residents distrust all politicians. What’s more, the risk of entrenched political apathy in Armenia is being seriously underestimated. If Pashinyan’s government relies solely on being “better than the past” without delivering tangible reforms or addressing widespread grievances, his government risks alienating the public and eroding trust in democratic governance as a whole. When citizens feel their leaders are only marginally better from corrupt predecessors, they may lose faith in the democratic process itself, viewing elections as ineffectual and governance as unresponsive.

 

This apathy creates fertile ground for authoritarianism or populism, as disillusioned voters may turn to leaders who promise radical change, even at the expense of democratic principles. High distrust in politicians also makes it harder to build robust, representative institutions, weakens civil society’s influence, and leaves Armenia more vulnerable to external pressures, especially from authoritarian regimes in the region that oppose democratization.

 

In Armenia, political apathy and a lack of institutionalized politics that provide people with a genuine sense of agency and choice have given rise to figures like video blogger Vardan Ghukasyan, known as “Dog.” A former policeman, Ghukasyan leverages his network of informants and uses his platform to build an audience, often engaging in sensationalism, extortion, and blackmail. His popularity has surged to rival that of opposition parties, but he is merely filling the gap left by a public disengaged from formal politics and a disliked political establishment.

 

These trends risk further destabilizing Armenia’s democracy. As more people feel unheard by mainstream politics, they become increasingly susceptible to those promising transgressive politics—even if that transgression means eroding democratic norms that these people feel never benefited them anyway.

 

The Global Threat of Trump’s Return

 

Trump’s return to office poses a heightened risk of spreading authoritarianism globally, especially for fledgling democracies like Armenia, which are vulnerable without Euro-Atlantic support. His tenure will almost certainly reduce U.S.’s commitment to democracy and human rights––despite the country’s already inconsistent stance on these issues––and embolden autocratic regimes like Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Russia. It may also decrease funding for democracy programs and technical assistance aimed at strengthening democratic institutions and civil society.

 

Armenia, as the only country in the South Caucasus actively working to democratize and strengthen ties with the West, stands as a counterpoint to regional autocracies like Russia and Azerbaijan. However, Armenia’s democratic aspirations are becoming increasingly isolated. Georgia, once a fellow aspirant, has experienced significant democratic backsliding for years, culminating in their recent elections. The country’s ruling party, Georgian Dream, has expanded control over state institutions, interfered with civil society work and independent media, and committed election fraud.

 

A potential Trump presidency could reinforce the narrative among the electorates of these fledgling democracies that populist, authoritarian ideologies are viable alternatives to democracy. This erosion of global democratic norms—which, notably, also occurred under Democratic administrations with similar foreign policies and disregard for human rights abroad—may undermine Armenia’s democratic momentum.

 

Reimagining Armenia’s Political Future: Beyond the Failed Status Quo

 

Since Armenia’s 2018 Velvet Revolution, the country has made modest but meaningful democratic progress. However, following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, there are worrying signs of democratic backsliding, leading my colleague Tigran Grigoryan and me to launch Democracy Watch. Given the current fragility within Western democracies, it is naïve to expect steadfast support for Armenia’s democratic journey from abroad.

 

For decades, Armenia has stood out in the post-Soviet space for its independent grassroots social movements and robust civic activism. Yet, since the defeat in 2020 and amid ongoing threats from Azerbaijan, Armenia’s once-active civic landscape has dwindled in the face of heightened political polarization. This decline in civic engagement signals a critical moment for Armenia’s democratic resilience.

 

Ultimately, sustainable democracy must be cultivated from within, rooted in local grassroots efforts. Lasting democratic resilience depends on internal legitimacy, community ownership, and alignment with the nation’s unique context. While support from the West provides valuable resources and advocacy, over-reliance on external actors risks undermining the organic growth essential to a stable democracy.

 

Armenia needs its people to ensure space for good-faith debate and mechanisms to hold its government accountable. The spirit of mutual aid, seen in Western communities striving for grassroots democracy, already exists naturally in Armenian society, where people look after one another and engage face-to-face. In such close-knit communities, it becomes far more challenging to dehumanize others when daily interactions bring people together across differences. This civic engagement offers a form of agency beyond voting, where people’s actions have immediate and meaningful impacts on their communities.

 

Armenia’s leadership, much like the American Democratic Party, continues to operate as though the old status quo is still intact. But that era is over. In the West, Trump’s victories are not just the result of material grievances but also of deeply entrenched culture wars. Across the globe, socially conservative voters feel increasingly alienated, turning to populist leaders who claim to speak for them while the political establishment remains out of touch.

 

Armenia’s way forward in this new reality is fraught and requires careful navigation. The challenges are significant: addressing political apathy, rebuilding trust in institutions, and fostering a political culture that encourages genuine representation and accountability. Without meaningful reform, Armenia risks deepening public disillusionment, leaving space for opportunistic figures or external pressures to exploit the vacuum.

 

Democracy Watch is a joint initiative by CivilNet and the Regional Center for Democracy and Security, a Yerevan-based think tank.

 

This material has been funded by UK International Development from the UK government; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.