The Nazi regime, some people think, might not look so bad when compared with others currently in power. Bad mistake. Just 80 years since its defeat in a terrible war, the extent and depth of its evil remains unparalleled. And for that reason, it must remain a measuring rod of political warnings.
Is this gangocracy?
As Democrats in the United States cast about for ways to counter Trump’s relentless accumulation and abuse of power, it’s worth reflecting on the ability of democracy to prevent seizure of power by an anti-democratic gang. Perhaps we need a new coinage – gangocracy? – for a form of government able to manipulate democratic norms to install a gang, rather than a party, in power.
The fascist regimes of the 1930s provide a striking but outdated model. The most obvious difference, starting with capital F Fascism (Mussolini’s original brand), is the militarist cohort of enforcers who exert enough pressure on a democratic system to achieve what the Nazis liked to call the ‘seizure of power’, wresting the organs of state from an old elite by an intimidating show of uniformed strength. The closest copy we have seen on our screens, with a more ragtag choice of costume, was Trump’s January 2021 insurrection on Capitol Hill.
The other part of the old model did not apply on that day but has been in evidence since: the craven submission of the established power structure. Trump prepared for this in his first term by installing his ‘own people’ in the judiciary, especially at the top, and in an amazingly straightforward takeover of what is now referred to as ‘the once-great’ Republican Party. A standard threat of withdrawing his popularity from any candidate not endorsing his populism was all it took.
Gang boss and henchmen
That brings up the iconic image of the second Trump presidency. Not the thuggish berating of Zelenskyy, and then Ramaphosa, in the Oval Office, but mute high officers of state seated in line to witness the performance. Even more than the pseudo-Stalinist standing ovations punctuating his State of the Union speeches, the row of ‘his people’ – dare we say ‘the shallow state’ – is choreographed to show Vance, Rubio, and Hegseth as henchmen called from their duties to their primary duty: fealty to the boss.
We are meant to see it that way: as a gang in blatant control*. Even the triumphant first photo of the Hitler regime was more modest. Yes, Göring would hold the main levers of power in Prussia and Frick in the Reich, but only in the course of 1933 and 1934 did the Hitler gang finally secure power. They had to undermine all the great institutions of state, resort to flagrant violence, and create ceaseless propaganda. The many petty interferences in everyday life combined to ensure compliance.
The Nazis never achieved a democratic majority, but that first Hitler cabinet certainly did. And even with no electoral opposition the popularity of the regime in the 1930s can scarcely be doubted. As various Trump imitators have found out, popularity is a necessary condition for populism to succeed. Popularity can be fickle.
The most roguish pretender, and most successful at in the UK, was Boris Johnson, who almost succeeded in governing by gang during the Covid epidemic but messed it up. It turned out that boozy parties for gangland insiders didn’t wash well with draconian lockdown policies for the public. Johnson’s rumpled appeal to ossified Conservative Party members could not carry him through yet more self-regarding bad behaviour and lies.
The pseudo-feudal charade
The most successful gangs remain the two with Leninist and Stalinist heritage. Neither Putin nor Xi have to fear electoral overthrow. Their situation is closer to the pre-modern baronial monarchies, where conspiracies among aristocratic near-equals could undermine the sworn allegiances of feudal stability.
Trump himself, as jester-in-chief, likes to play up the image of a king and his court. It is more than a charade. He makes great play of the presidential power to hire and fire. Loyalty to his person is what counts. Loyalty to public servants in their constitutional role as servants of the American public does not count at all.
The larger public, citizens of all the world’s states, are required to watch their leaders journey across the globe into the presidential presence to bow and beg for a reward of less crippling tariffs.
Deadly earnest: two terrorist gangs
The ability of a gang, under cover of democracy, to corrupt a state and convulse international politics is shown to most tragic effect in Israel. There is no point in saying that Israel’s government has no choice but to respond to the gangs ruling Palestine: both the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas were pushed and pulled by Israel to weaken the national aspirations of Palestinians. Their democratic mandates were to count for nothing, while the minority democratic mandates of Smotrich (finance minister) and Ben Gvir (national security minister), would ensure Netanyahu’s progressively more genocidal gang would hang on to power.
The tragedy of Israel and its genocidal war is not, as its government has continued to claim, that the Israel Defence Forces are waging a war of democracy against terrorism. What quickly developed along the way, destroying the myth of ‘the world’s most moral army’, was a war of two terrorist gangs. One gang, Hamas, was decapitated with ruthless efficiency but continued to fight as its people were slaughtered all around. The other gang, the Netanyahu government, continued to slaughter with impunity, safe behind an American shield and immune to democratic challenge.
The supposed dislike between Netanyahu and Trump was dissolved by the mutual respect between successful gangland leaders. Each, according to crime’s traditional honour code, recognised the abilities and necessary continuance of the other. (No such mutual respect for Ramaphosa, whom Trump subjected to a public video lesson on the ‘genocide’ of white South Africans. A lesson on genocide for Netanyahu was not staged.) There is high strategy geopolitics involved in these relationships, but the low politics of corruption and domestic manipulation keep seeping to the surface.
The Trump court may not be explicitly modelled on the Corleoni family but, for the insistence on absolute loyalty and the long memory for slights or grievances, The Godfather is probably as good a guide as any. Praise may go as far as ‘nice’, displeasure is simply voiced as ‘not happy’. Policy differences will merit a personal judgement of ‘stupid’ (the chair of the Federal Reserve) or ‘nasty’ (any journalist who asks a question that might imply a criticism). Under a transparently fake guise of punishment for antisemitism, the classic gangland shakedown of universities and other liberal institutions continues. Meanwhile, the overt genocidal intentions of the far-right cabinet members keeping Netanyahu out of the courts have apparently passed muster. They are in fact, like himself, criminal.
Will democracy fight back?
It is possible that democracies will learn to resist the blandishments of charlatans and demagogic bullies. Reality helped British voters see through the Brexit show with remarkable rapidity, though Starmer is careful not to put this directly to the test. No one likes to admit to having been conned. Trump’s opponents in the last election took care to skirt that suggestion. The Democrats, as democrats, are careful not to offend the voters they need. They have, after all, been severely burned: voting for a criminal did not deter a majority in the last election. It is even possible that a secret (or open) thrill of transgression attracted some to Trump.
Trump continues to have success in flagrantly transgressing national and international norms. Whether manipulating tariffs in outspoken support for a failed imitator (former President Bolsonaro in Brazil) or continual courting of an admired authoritarian (perpetual President Putin of Russia) he glories in disruption of democracy round the world. His unshaken support for the genocidal gang in command of Israel is a national shame. And he understands that all methods, however defiant of convention, can at least be tried to stay in power.
We must be aware that once a gang gets its hands on an electoral system that can be bent to guard against democracy – watch Trump’s push to expand the Republican gerrymander in Texas before next year’s midterm elections – recovery can be slowed for a generation. There are signs that voters are no longer convinced that democracy is preferable to gang rule. Might they allow demagogy to override democracy more permanently?
Ed. Readers from Australia, of those who can access a free ABC account in iview, may be able to watch this interesting Four Corners programme entitled ‘Trump vs The Law’
