Have you ever stopped doing something you regularly do, only to find out that the activity you were regularly participating in was better for you than you initially thought?
Do you remember burning any bridges in your distant past that you wish you hadn’t?
Is “better” always better?
Today, I want to provide a little bit of a cautionary tale, and raise a few questions about whether we’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater or not.
The Authoritarian Grass is Always Greener
In times of crisis or perceived decline, the allure of the strongman can be as compelling as it is misleading.
Democratic backsliding happens all over the world, and it’s always a threat. In today’s bipolar world, exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, stark lines are being drawn, and Team Authoritarian will naturally do what it can in order to “recruit” other nations to its side, and vice versa for Team Democracy.
Citizens of a democracy want to live in a world where “the trains run on time,” and the classic strongman steps in making exactly these promises.
Freedom is messy. Democracy takes a lot of effort.
People are lazy.
Right now, we are seeing this struggle play out in the Sahel region of Africa, where there have been two coups in the last month: Niger and Gabon. While neither nation has been a paradigm of democratic values over the last few decades, both have leaned more in the direction of democracy than the recent post-coup leadership.
And, of course, there is speculation about other authoritarian governments being behind these coups.
History provides numerous cautionary tales of nations that willingly walked the path from democracy to authoritarian rule, believing that efficiency could replace the messiness of freedom. Mussolini's Italy and Hitler’s Germany were extreme versions of this phenomenon, with liberty traded in for “trains running on time.”
And, unlike the recent events in Niger and Gabon, these weren’t violent coups, but with the willful consent of a frustrated populace.
The complexity and challenges that democracies face—like economic inequality, social discord, and inherent inefficiencies—sometimes seem to promise no quick solutions. This uncertainty can breed a craving for a more straightforward, more decisive form of governance.
Authoritarian regimes capitalize on this yearning by offering an illusion of stability, all while claiming to have the answers to society's most pressing issues. However, the very efficiency that makes authoritarianism attractive comes at a steep cost: the erosion of social justice, freedom, and the space for dissent.
Sure, the grass is greener over on the authoritarian side. The strongman has all the answers to all the problems! But this grass has an awful lot of dog poop and bear traps, and that grass you’re standing on might not be so bad after all.
These trade-offs are worthy of your consideration.
Tech
If the allure of a dictatorship is strong, the seduction of new technology is irresistible.
If we’re supposed to be active citizens in a democracy, we’re going to welcome anything that makes life more convenient. After all, democracy is a lot of work! Here in the US, our national mantra might as well be “Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death,” which happens to be the title of a Dead Kennedys album from the early 80s. Brief side note: I wrote about some punk songs here.
The incredible convenience that social media offers is unparalleled. Naturally, we Americans have flocked to it in droves ever since Myspace and then Facebook began to shape the modern social media landscape. Bookmark my brief history of social media for later reading if you’re interested.
These platforms promised that we’d be connected to the world, to our friends and family, and even to important businesses or celebrities. Sure enough, it’s incredibly easy to find out what your cousin in Egypt is up to this week, or your aunt in Iowa.
But do the unexpected negatives overwhelm that positive aspect? Have we thrown the baby out with the bathwater by creating echo chambers and new societal divisions? Can democracy itself survive this demand for convenience and entertainment?
Have we traded the last shred of our privacy for likes?
Everyone has a smartphone now, so many of us are constantly checking social media feeds, no matter where we are. And smartphones follow us everywhere we go, never really leaving our side. Is the convenience worth what we’re giving up? Probably for many, but probably not for some.
Conclusion
The allure of "better" is always compelling.
Whether that's a strongman promising to set the clockwork of society in motion, or technology that borders on magic, "better" always has fine print. This cost is not always readily apparent.
From the erosion of democratic values and freedom in favor of authoritarian stability, to the trading of privacy and social cohesion for technological convenience, these decisions shape the world we live in, often in ways we only come to understand when it's too late.
The next time you find yourself yearning for the greener grass on the other side, pause and think: what baby are you willing to throw out with the bathwater?
Your assignment is to be vigilant and conscious of the choices you're making or supporting. Whether it's casting a vote, clicking “like”, or even choosing to remain silent—each action carries weight. The grass you’re standing on right now is the result of a combination of choices; make sure it’s really worth the trade-off.
What are some ways you’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater in your own life? What are some good examples from history? Tell me in the comments.
"Everyone has a smartphone now, so many of us are constantly checking social media feeds, no matter where we are. And smartphones follow us everywhere we go, never really leaving our side."
Pfft, nonsense!
...comments Daniel while reading this very post on his smartphone as he waits downstairs for his daughter to pick up her backpack from the top floor of her school.
If the hyper-consumable Star Wars movies didn't teach us the authoritarian lesson, nothing will.