 To Looking to the East, I'm your host, Dr. Steven Zercher. I'm broadcasting this morning from Kobe, Japan. And we're going to be talking about a very interesting subject for this particular show. I've noticed in looking at the news in the United States over the last few weeks that the popularity of the former president of the United States continues to be quite strong within a relatively broad segment of the U.S. voting population, the U.S. population overall. And it got me thinking about the United States and the evolution of our democracy. And I began to question in my mind whether or not the United States could potentially follow in the footsteps of many other countries around the world, and that has moved more towards authoritarianism. Trump has often indicated that he would like to become a dictator, that he is the person that his follower should follow and listen to. So there's signal signs that the United States has the potential to move in that direction. Obviously, Trump lost the election, although his followers don't believe that. And I was just reading that there's going to be a second inauguration next month, which is remarkable. But again, that segment of the population eventually believes Trump will become president and move into that dominant role. So as I began to think about this, I said, well, how can I get as a guest who could help me answer these questions that I have in my mind, whether or not this is really possible or am I just fearing the shadows? And the United States would not move in that direction because we're a democratic country. So I contacted Professor Mark Kogan. So Mark is with us this morning from his home. Thank you so much, Mark, for being with us, getting up early on a Tuesday morning here in Japan and participating. Mark is an associate professor at Kansai Gaida University. He's been teaching there for five years now. He focuses on peace and conflict studies. And what really triggered my decision to contact him and ask him about this is he teaches a class on authoritarianism. It's called tyrants, dictators, and strongmen. Yeah, so he's been teaching that class for a number of years. So he focuses on authoritarianism in Asia, where I read in his description of his class, 50% of the countries in Asia have never been a democracy. They followed this authoritarian role. So Mark, welcome to the show. Again, thank you very much for having me. Yeah, let's start with defining what authoritarianism is. And then maybe you could give some examples of countries in Asia that follow this model, like China comes to mind and Singapore comes to mind. There's many examples. Sure. So there's a number of definitions of what an authoritarian typology would look like, but a classic definition by Samuel Huntington, one of the famous authors who wrote The Third Wave, talking about the Third Wave of democratization around the world. We're now, of course, in a democratic recession. But his idea of an authoritarian regime was ruled not by popular elected leaders, but by a single leader or a third party. And that there would be limited political pluralism, meaning the free flow of ideas, cultures, ideologies within a society. And there would be a limited mobilization or the ability for people to mass mobilize on issues of their concern or special interests. And there would be some use, a minor use of propaganda or even small acts of state terrorism to repress a population. But authoritarian regimes are not all the same. Sometimes an ideology is stronger, but generally ideologies are weak. Political pluralism, like the use of political parties, have a role in society. There are opposition political parties that are permitted to exist. Civil society still has a role to play. And the regime itself does not seek to exact total control over society in general. So if you look at it that way, you have a kind of authoritarian topology. But I think a better question is what's a democracy, right? So anything that falls short of a kind of minimum standard or a topology of democracy could be classified as someone or a state that is sliding slowly into authoritarianism. You put it on a kind of continuum. So these things are quite simple and there are lots of different definitions out there. So the presence of free and fair elections, people who are of adult age 18 to 21 or whatever have the right to vote, anyone has the right to vote and can vote if they want to without interference. And then the right of people who are popularly elected to take power once that election is over, meaning the election has some sort of consequence. So we can start there in our analysis whether or not the United States is sliding slowly into authoritarianism. Yeah, those are some interesting characteristics that you point out there. And I will get into this, I think, in a few more minutes. But it seems like the United States may be failing on some of those markers for what a democracy is, which would then potentially predict that the United States is moving more towards that model. But let's go back to Asia. Can you give an example for the viewers of an authoritarian regime, which doesn't meet the metrics that you had just mentioned, for example, elections and so forth? What country would you say was the best example of that type, that particular type of government format? Well, I think that there are a couple of examples and they are representative of how different authoritarian regimes really are. OK, there are authoritarian regimes, there are hybrid regimes, there are totalitarian states. We're talking about a classic authoritarian type state. Two examples of those are Singapore and Thailand. So the Singaporean model of governance has been kind of highly touted in the East. There was a conversation in the mid-90s about Asian values and whether or not a Singaporean model was more applicable to East Asia than Western-style democracy was. Singapore is an example of a country that has high economic growth. One of the more wealthy countries in the region, it has political parties, it has largely free and fair elections. People who want to vote can vote and then the ruling party, once it's elected, takes power. The problem with Singapore, what makes it an authoritarian regime, is that there are a number of areas in terms of elections, in terms of the media, in terms of the legislature, not so much the judiciary, that make it fall back so much. For example, for many, many years, the long-time prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, his PAP, People's Action Party, won every single election. So every single... As I recall, because I've been in and out of Singapore, it wasn't even close, right? No, it's never close. 80% or 90% in the... There would be opposition parties who competed in election, but because, one, the philosophy of governance was quite popular. People were, to a certain extent, happy with the exchange, but... Mark, let me stop you there, because I think that's an interesting point. The exchange being economic success and loss of political freedom. Yes, so to speak, yes. Okay, I just want to make that clear, because that's my observation, that Singaporeans are more interested in wealth than they are in democracy. Maybe that's too simplistic, but anyway, it was a trade-off that they made, and many countries make that trade-off, too. So the thing about Singapore is that the opposition political parties, even though they contested the election, so to speak, the opposition leaders were often jailed or under great coercion. They didn't have access to media during the election periods, and the way the campaigns are funded, they were under greater scrutiny than the PAP. And journalists in the country, not from elections, but in the realm of the Fourth Estate, were treated quite poorly, threatened with legal action, heavily censored. There was, for a great long time, a kind of media control going on in the country. And then, of course, the second example, to try to be more concise here, is Thailand. I have to stop you there, because I think the perception in the West, I don't know where this comes from, is that Thailand's a democracy. Well, that's stupid. Thailand holds free and fair elections, so to speak. It holds elections, but they're certainly not free and they're certainly not fair. For example, recently, Thailand held its March 1920 election, but the March 2019 elections, the election was stacked by the new constitution, which gives a favorable percentage to the military, to the police. So the legislative sort of math is stacked in favor of a coalition party or a group of parties that are backing the military junta, or the military government. Routinely in Thailand, and I'm not even talking about the worst kinds of abuses in Thailand, I'm talking about the guard and variety of abuses, right? When the government feels that an issue is of injury to national security, or threatens the monarchy, media organizations will be shut down, closed or threatened. Journalists in the past have been imprisoned, or simply disappeared. The referendum itself on Thailand's constitution, which was largely written by the monarchy and military drafters, so to speak. There was kind of silencing of dissent. People were not allowed to campaign against it. Anyone who was voicing criticism of the referendum were threatened, and sometimes jailed for that kind of simple kind of dissent. So Thailand has free and fair elections, but it fails every other test. So the question now, I suppose, is does the United States fit into any of these kinds of categories? Well, I have to say that some of the things that you've mentioned as hallmarks of Singapore and Thailand are applicable. Certainly, the persecution of journalists under the Trump administration, that was a daily barrage. They didn't end up in jail, but they were called traitors and enemies of the state. So that particular aspect of Singapore, and also Thailand, is evident in the United States. That's always been a struggle in the U.S. I kind of disagree with you. Oh, you do? Okay. Go ahead. Because there isn't... Yes, journalists are criticized in the United States. And the rankings, press freedom rankings in the United States under the Trump administration, fell quite dramatically. But the press still has the ability to report the news, right? Journalists are not imprisoned. Right. There's full exercise, full control. Well, yeah, I wasn't saying it was the same. However, the only difference is that there was increased media criticism. So people, you know, the demonization or the dehumanization of journalists in America was on the rise, which, you know, if left untreated, right, could have led to violence, right? Not just extreme rhetoric by the president and extreme rhetoric and sentiment by his supporters. I mean, Donald Trump, of course, but it could have led to violence. Right. Yeah, I think there were some instances of journalists being attacked by the Trump supporters and crowds. But it was nothing like, I agree with you, it was nothing like going to jail and disappearing. Right. Or having your entire... Well, forced disappearance. Being sued into bankruptcy, which I know Singapore used to do as well. They would just sue these journalists or opposition politicians to the point where they had no money left whatsoever. This was something that Trump had been in favor of for a very long time, which was changing the liable laws. Right, exactly. Which had made it easier to target journalists. But that never, of course, had happened. So let's pivot to this... And survive the First Amendment challenge. Sure. So let's pivot then to the United States. So we have a definition of what authoritarianism is, even though it's quite broad and there's different representations of it, as you point out. But we have the example of Singapore, which is based on economics, perhaps a trade off people giving up political freedom. It's kind of with their consent. Although I think it's slowly changing in Singapore. I've read that there's maybe a greater interest in democracy. But anyway, then you talked about Thailand, where things are pretty much dictated by the monarchy and also the military. So let's apply that then to the United States. These characteristics, where do you see the United States signaling or moving in the direction of these other states in Thailand and Singapore? And maybe where, for example, is the United States clearly not at risk for moving in that direction? Because those characteristics are still freely dependent and are democratic in nature. How would you... I mean, it's a tough question, Mark. I understand. But how would you do it at a broad level? Well, I would say that there was a scholar about 20 years ago, 2002, 2003, Steven Levitsky wrote a book about something called competitive authoritarianism. And he used four areas of what they call democratic contestation. And we'll talk about a few of them. The media is one of them. So in the United States, in any kind of liberal democracy, you need a free and fair press and people need access to information and also access to alternative information. Meaning if the government is in control of the media, you need a secondary source. You can't just buy what the government is telling you, so to speak. In that area of contestation, have there been any kind of movements away from a free and fair press? And you could make the case that the free press in the United States is slowly sliding back as evidenced by its deterioration of its free to the press rankings by reporters without borders. But there is greater media monopoly. So you have the presence of television networks like Fox News or Newsmax, these sort of injurious rightling platforms. Or you have greater political polarization, even among media networks in the United States. And you could also argue that when it comes to information, social media companies like Facebook aren't doing enough to combat the spread of partisan fake news or disinformation online. So has there been violations or sort of incursions into that free and fair press in the United States? I'd say very little. But the vulnerabilities are still there, right? Greater media concentration, right? Partisanship in television networks, harassment, threatening of journalists. But as long as the free press is able to do its job without interference, I don't see any kind of change. The American Steel meets all the categories of having a free and fair press. Other areas of contestation, like elections. I say you have some real evidence. Because you have an election in 2020, millions of people vote. Joe Biden got 81 million votes and Trump got about 74 million. There was a result in all 50 American states, right? Some of those states were close, Arizona, Pennsylvania, right? And some of the results were challenged, right? Particularly in Arizona, particularly in Pennsylvania and Georgia, of course, right? Trump went through 60 or more legal challenges to those election results. All but I think one of those legal challenges, right? He lost, right? He was entitled to recounts under law, right? He paid for recounts as under law. And the machine count and the hand counts were virtually identical. They're never probably ever going to be the same. But within a very, very, very sort of razor margin, the same. Not enough to upset the outcome or the result. So the problem with it is he was not willing to accept the result. And he was able to persuade people that the election was stolen from him. And on January 6th, there was a kind of insurrection or a kind of authoritarian fantasy played out on the steps of the Capitol where for the first time people thought, well, maybe people aren't going to accept the actual results of the election. That there would be something else. I don't know what they were fantasizing about, of course. Some kind of military regime, some kind of authoritarian regime run by Trump. I think so. Yeah, if you look at the posters and the signs, it was clear that there was a personal allegiance to him above and beyond the Democratic election. So journalism, you're saying the signs are not there, that we still have a free and fair press, and what happens in Singapore and Thailand? You still have free and fair elections. But sometimes for the first time in a very, very long time, since the 1870s, you have people who are not happy with the result. Hey, Mark, we were running out of time, and we actually got some questions coming in here. Oh, that's great. Yeah. So this question here, I'll go ahead and read it to you. In a recent article titled First as a Farce, Then as a Tragedy, the nine U.S. division perpetuates Trumpism's delusions. Philosopher Solvall Zizek, you ever heard of that verse? Oh, you have. Okay, argued that there are at least 30 million Americans that are ready for a dictator partly because of the cognitive decline in the United States. That's a huge issue. Anti-science, anti-region, and I would, this is not in the question, but I would also put in fundamentalism because evangelical religious types are ones who tend to make up a large segment of the Trump supporters. So actually, this question is what caused me to do the show. Is it a used question? It said that there is, he's saying that there's a segment of the American population that would want to move in this direction. And he's estimating this 30 million people. It's not just a ragtag group that we saw invading the capital since the first time since 1812, but there's a huge population out there that would reject democracy if Trump was to become the leader. Yeah. Okay, my response is that I think there's some validity there. And I think it has to do with personality characteristics. There was an author or a political scientist by the name of Karen Stenner who wrote a book primarily about something called latent authoritarianism. And the idea was that people don't really identify readily as authoritarians. They wouldn't readily admit that. But when faced with circumstances like changes, like sea changes in social and political norms, in 2016, people galvanized quite quickly around Donald Trump and early Republicans in the South Carolina primary at that particular point in time had largely decided in favor of Trump and they never wavered from then on. So it's a question of those characteristics. So, you know, people are fear, they fear wholesale changes in society. They are worried about external threats, whether that be from Muslims or threats to their economic livelihoods that foreigners, immigrants, are so called stealing their jobs, you know, kind of economic fragility or anxiety. It makes them make extreme choices. Trump tapped into that those kind of personality characteristics and he also sort of tapped into a kind of populist moment where he could paint individuals that threaten American norms and American traditions and American way of life as something dangerous to society. So he kind of created these, you know, the sort of favorite in group and a very, very sort of deviant out group. That's the classic sort of populist formula. But there are also personality characteristics that kind of make up this, you know, a rejection of reason, simplistic thinking on the part of people. You know, as the commenter said, a disbelief in science and reason, right? The highest percentage of people who voted for Trump were people without a college degree. Hey, Mark, yeah, Melissa, I know we're running a little bit over time, but I want to go over because I want to get to this next question just one minute on this, Mark. It's kind of interesting. So he talks about the management of government and democracies are challenging. Yeah. To actually manage well that if you look at Singapore, despite the trade off, the lack of democracy there, it's run more efficiently. That is certainly true. For example, their government officials get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, you know, when they invest in their government and they get the brightest people to make the decisions and so forth. So the question is, should we change our tumultuous democracy to a more improved management for the United States? Can our democracy get better, maybe technically or so forth? And is democracy sustainable if we don't make that change? That's the question. One minute only, Mark. I'm sorry. That's another tough question. Yeah, but it's not that all that difficult to answer. But I think my response is I would answer with a question. What kind of management changes are needed to equal the kind of discipline that Singapore has had maintained? Wow, that's tough to answer. Yeah, so people say that Singapore is much better managed than the United States. And that, you know, well, it's a lot more simple of a place to manage. It is a city state, right? It's complexity or it's complexities are a little bit different. What kind of management changes are we talking about? What kind of democracy changes would be necessary? Let me frame it in a completely different way, right? I think there probably are. I just think that, for example, a Singaporean model would not work in the United States. It simply wouldn't work, right? And some systems simply don't work elsewhere because of a variety of factors. For example, a lot of African democracies, if you want to call them even flawed democracies, inherited their systems from the West, right? And those systems which work very well in the United Kingdom, right? When they were protectorates or part of the Commonwealth, they led to catastrophic disasters when those African states declared independence. This is evidence in Lesotho where I used to work before I came to Kanzai Gaidai. Obviously there are economic, social and cultural factors which complicate the situation, right? But the systems itself, the management of democracy, right? What works for Singapore or what works for Brunei or these sort of wealthy authoritarian states won't work for the United States, just not. Yeah, I agree with you. I'm a management professor. So I think there could be some things that we can do, but I agree. The wholesale changes you're talking about, Americans won't even wear masks. As we know. Okay, Mark, we could easily go on for another half hour hour on this. Thank you so much. This has been so interesting and you're so well informed on this topic. Really appreciate it. Thank you to the viewers. And my next show is a couple of weeks. I'm thinking of addressing the issue of women in Japan. There's been some controversy over the last week or so with a high-level government official disparaging women as business people. So that'll be the next topic in a couple of weeks. So you guys can tune in for that show. Mark, again, thank you so much for taking time. Appreciate it. Thank you for the questions from our viewers. And that's a wrap. Thank you. See you all next time. Bye, everyone.