Fueled by anti-immigration fervor, support for populist far-right parties is surging around the world. Paul Lynch’s novel “Prophet Song,” winner of this year’s Booker Prize, serves as a stark reminder of the chaos and hardship that political populism and authoritarian regimes invariably bring.
LONDON – Irish author Paul Lynch has been awarded this year’s Booker Prize, one of the most prestigious literary prizes in the English-speaking world, for his novel Prophet Song – and for good reason. With its harrowing vision of Ireland descending into tyranny, Lynch’s book perfectly captures the anxiety that characterizes our current political moment.
Not all critics were impressed. One reviewer described it as a “flapping turkey” of a book, criticizing Lynch for his sub-Orwellian themes and prose. But most reviews have been more favorable, with many lauding the book for reflecting mounting concerns about the future of parliamentary democracy in Western Europe and beyond. Lynch’s portrayal of a country sliding into authoritarian rule would certainly resonate with far-right leaders such as the recently triumphant Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and France’s Marine Le Pen.
Wilders’ stunning victory in the Dutch general election underscores the growing support for far-right parties across Europe. For more than two decades, he has been a vocal critic of the Netherlands’ immigration policies, frequently targeting the country’s Muslim community. His rise to prominence can be largely attributed to the blend of identity politics and simplistic solutions characteristic of today’s populist movements.
Proponents of liberal democracy have long worried about the influence of identity politics. While it is natural for individuals to identify with various familial, ethnic, religious, and national groups, the principles of liberal democracy extend far beyond such affiliations. At their core is the recognition that managing a diverse, pluralistic society is a complicated task that requires more than just an electoral majority.
Throughout history, eminent political philosophers like Cicero, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Edmund Burke have emphasized the necessity of checks and balances on majority opinion in the interest of protecting minority rights – a pillar of liberal democracy. By contrast, today’s illiberal democracies may allow citizens to vote, but only after the ruling party has captured and hollowed out independent institutions and manipulated the system to guarantee that it would never lose.
This is not to say that identity does not matter. I am English and hold a British passport, but my great-grandfather was Irish. My faith is Roman Catholic, and politically, I identify as an old-fashioned, right-of-center Tory. I consider myself both a European and an internationalist. Most importantly, my family is the cornerstone of my personal identity.
Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Climate Crucible
The newest issue of our magazine, PS Quarterly: The Climate Crucible, is here. To gain digital access to all of the magazine’s content, and receive your print copy, subscribe to PS Premium now.
Subscribe Now
Each aspect of my identity embodies values that I hold dear. I am a firm believer in tolerance and moderation, the rule of law, and parliamentary democracy. I also sympathize with Pope Francis’s view that churches should not act as enforcers dictating how we live our lives. Instead, they should serve as hospitals, offering support and guidance to help us navigate life’s vicissitudes as best we can.
Moreover, I have always been skeptical of those offering simple solutions to complex problems. This skepticism is what drove me to oppose Brexit. Ultimately, the idea that British people could regain control and sovereignty over our national and individual futures by exiting the European Union was revealed to be a delusion fueled by lies. Similarly, the promise that Brexit would restore the United Kingdom’s global stature has been thoroughly discredited. And instead of making it easier to control immigration, Britain’s departure from the EU has had the opposite effect.
Historically, immigration has often served as a catalyst for authoritarian populism. In the past, it led to the widespread persecution of Jewish communities, and today, it is fueling hostility toward Muslim populations. In the Netherlands, as in Hungary and France, xenophobia and Islamophobia are the driving forces behind the rise of nationalist extremism and the erosion of liberal values.
The allure of populist authoritarianism grows when governments fail to deliver moderate and sensible responses to immigration or manage their borders effectively. But it becomes an even greater threat in periods of economic stress, particularly when democratic governments are unable to improve living standards.
Parliamentary democracies demand more sophisticated leadership than is necessary in authoritarian regimes. After all, democratic leaders must explain why complex issues cannot always be resolved by exploiting prejudices or resorting to cheap slogans. That is also why democracies, when they are well-run, tend to offer a higher quality of life than any alternative system of governance.
While it may appear easier for dictatorships like China to enforce their will, this approach often leads to diminished economic performance and reduced political legitimacy, as evidenced by the Chinese economy’s recent struggles. A surveillance state can crack down on dissent and restrict free speech, but such measures are not sustainable over the long term and tend to produce disastrous consequences.
In present-day China, the government actively suppresses any acknowledgment or remembrance of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, where hundreds if not thousands of students were killed. Despite these attempts to erase history, however, the memory of these events endures. As Tolstoy taught us, attempts to suppress dissent can sometimes transform a trickle of discontent into a tsunami that sweeps away authoritarian leaders and institutions.
Lynch’s Booker Prize-winning novel, with its unsettling premise, serves as a stark reminder of the chaos and hardship that political populism and authoritarianism invariably bring. If you are considering buying the book, however, you might want to delay reading it until after the holiday season. It is an important book, but not one that inspires light-heartedness and joy.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
If UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves tried to meet all the political demands that have been placed on her, her budget would likely result in disappointing growth and financial instability. Instead, the new government's first budget should be judged according to four longer-term criteria.
lists four criteria for assessing the chancellor's attempt to meet a long list of unrealistic demands.
At COP16 in Colombia this month, delegates from nearly 200 countries will discuss how to accelerate action to protect 30% of the planet’s land and maritime areas by 2030. Central to that goal will be unlocking more investment through public-private partnerships, de-risking mechanisms, and other innovative strategies.
points out that biodiversity loss and ecosystem damage jeopardize all other global development goals.
LONDON – Irish author Paul Lynch has been awarded this year’s Booker Prize, one of the most prestigious literary prizes in the English-speaking world, for his novel Prophet Song – and for good reason. With its harrowing vision of Ireland descending into tyranny, Lynch’s book perfectly captures the anxiety that characterizes our current political moment.
Not all critics were impressed. One reviewer described it as a “flapping turkey” of a book, criticizing Lynch for his sub-Orwellian themes and prose. But most reviews have been more favorable, with many lauding the book for reflecting mounting concerns about the future of parliamentary democracy in Western Europe and beyond. Lynch’s portrayal of a country sliding into authoritarian rule would certainly resonate with far-right leaders such as the recently triumphant Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and France’s Marine Le Pen.
Wilders’ stunning victory in the Dutch general election underscores the growing support for far-right parties across Europe. For more than two decades, he has been a vocal critic of the Netherlands’ immigration policies, frequently targeting the country’s Muslim community. His rise to prominence can be largely attributed to the blend of identity politics and simplistic solutions characteristic of today’s populist movements.
Proponents of liberal democracy have long worried about the influence of identity politics. While it is natural for individuals to identify with various familial, ethnic, religious, and national groups, the principles of liberal democracy extend far beyond such affiliations. At their core is the recognition that managing a diverse, pluralistic society is a complicated task that requires more than just an electoral majority.
Throughout history, eminent political philosophers like Cicero, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Edmund Burke have emphasized the necessity of checks and balances on majority opinion in the interest of protecting minority rights – a pillar of liberal democracy. By contrast, today’s illiberal democracies may allow citizens to vote, but only after the ruling party has captured and hollowed out independent institutions and manipulated the system to guarantee that it would never lose.
This is not to say that identity does not matter. I am English and hold a British passport, but my great-grandfather was Irish. My faith is Roman Catholic, and politically, I identify as an old-fashioned, right-of-center Tory. I consider myself both a European and an internationalist. Most importantly, my family is the cornerstone of my personal identity.
Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Climate Crucible
The newest issue of our magazine, PS Quarterly: The Climate Crucible, is here. To gain digital access to all of the magazine’s content, and receive your print copy, subscribe to PS Premium now.
Subscribe Now
Each aspect of my identity embodies values that I hold dear. I am a firm believer in tolerance and moderation, the rule of law, and parliamentary democracy. I also sympathize with Pope Francis’s view that churches should not act as enforcers dictating how we live our lives. Instead, they should serve as hospitals, offering support and guidance to help us navigate life’s vicissitudes as best we can.
Moreover, I have always been skeptical of those offering simple solutions to complex problems. This skepticism is what drove me to oppose Brexit. Ultimately, the idea that British people could regain control and sovereignty over our national and individual futures by exiting the European Union was revealed to be a delusion fueled by lies. Similarly, the promise that Brexit would restore the United Kingdom’s global stature has been thoroughly discredited. And instead of making it easier to control immigration, Britain’s departure from the EU has had the opposite effect.
Historically, immigration has often served as a catalyst for authoritarian populism. In the past, it led to the widespread persecution of Jewish communities, and today, it is fueling hostility toward Muslim populations. In the Netherlands, as in Hungary and France, xenophobia and Islamophobia are the driving forces behind the rise of nationalist extremism and the erosion of liberal values.
The allure of populist authoritarianism grows when governments fail to deliver moderate and sensible responses to immigration or manage their borders effectively. But it becomes an even greater threat in periods of economic stress, particularly when democratic governments are unable to improve living standards.
Parliamentary democracies demand more sophisticated leadership than is necessary in authoritarian regimes. After all, democratic leaders must explain why complex issues cannot always be resolved by exploiting prejudices or resorting to cheap slogans. That is also why democracies, when they are well-run, tend to offer a higher quality of life than any alternative system of governance.
While it may appear easier for dictatorships like China to enforce their will, this approach often leads to diminished economic performance and reduced political legitimacy, as evidenced by the Chinese economy’s recent struggles. A surveillance state can crack down on dissent and restrict free speech, but such measures are not sustainable over the long term and tend to produce disastrous consequences.
In present-day China, the government actively suppresses any acknowledgment or remembrance of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, where hundreds if not thousands of students were killed. Despite these attempts to erase history, however, the memory of these events endures. As Tolstoy taught us, attempts to suppress dissent can sometimes transform a trickle of discontent into a tsunami that sweeps away authoritarian leaders and institutions.
Lynch’s Booker Prize-winning novel, with its unsettling premise, serves as a stark reminder of the chaos and hardship that political populism and authoritarianism invariably bring. If you are considering buying the book, however, you might want to delay reading it until after the holiday season. It is an important book, but not one that inspires light-heartedness and joy.