Our beautiful planet is facing an acute crisis, one that has impacted all aspects of human relations – social, economic, and political. One of the most visible symptoms of this crisis is leadership stagnation. In the past 20-30 years, it seems as though there has been a radical shift in the understanding of democracy, and time has seemingly frozen on the political Olympus. The gerontocracy that prevailed in the late Soviet Union appears to have been contagious, spreading across the globe. This isn’t mere hyperbole. Just consider the parliaments and leaders around the world; you might even conclude the situation is grimmer than I describe. Look at the US Congress: a glaring disconnect where the average age exceeds the populace’s by two decades. A staggering 38% of Senators are septuagenarians, with a whopping 72% over 60.

It’s not just about age. It’s about a stubborn clutching to power, an unwillingness to pass the baton under any circumstances. It feels like witnessing a desperate, almost reckless, scramble to retain control, consequences be damned.

The US is seen as an example all over the world. All non-autocratic (I don't dare call it democracy) regimes, more or less, try to take an example from him. Let us consider the US situation in more detail. The Roosevelts started to spoil the situation. The first of them, despite trying, did not succeed. The other succeeded and trampled the tradition introduced by the founding fathers. Although frightened legislators quickly introduced the 22nd amendment, the genie had already been released and things developed as they did - Not letting go of power has become a sport. It has become a kind of good practice to leave elective positions in the family. It's as if everyone has forgotten that the inheritance of power is a harmful practice, as if no one studies history anymore. A father president is accompanied by a son president, a husband president is accompanied by a wife president. Although the wife did not become the president, but she tried! It is worth noting that the attempt did not turn out to be disastrous (as I expected), but was even almost successful. Even today, there are rumors about the presidential ambitions of another president's wife. Everyone, and here I mean absolutely everyone, both politicians and voters, forgets together that the legitimacy of elected persons does not come from God; not inherited; The elected person must serve the voter and carry out his interests; He should not lie under oath, and if he does, he should be punished both politically and legally (perhaps more severely than the average person). It is clear that in a situation where the main principles of democracy are perceived as an inconvenience that can be bypassed, when it is considered normal to inherit elective office, the appearance of new faces is complicated. In such a situation, an acute political crisis is inevitable. A crisis is good if you can upgrade, but in the situation we described, it is impossible to upgrade, so the crisis that is developing at this moment can collapse everything.

As we have already mentioned, the US is used as a role-model by authoritarian and non-authoritarian regimes all over the world. Merkel, who served in office for 16 years, notably remained in her role even after losing consciousness at an official event. Berlusconi clung to power through various means, including creating new parties and engaging in questionable practices. Netanyahu first became Prime Minister in 1996 and, as of 2022, has held the position for a total of 16 years, serving his third term. Just think about it, This man first became Prime Minister 27 years ago, when more than 40% of Israel's current population was not even born yet. We can also look at slightly different modes. Putin has changed the constitution several times to maintain his power. Xi Jinping also abolished the 10-year restriction introduced by Deng Xiaoping. In short, the leaders of the whole world boldly go towards eternal rule.

The political elite tried to make cosmetic changes to its image, Following Ronald and George, it was no longer William but 'Bill,' a saxophone-playing president. In addition to playing the saxophone, Bill was "talking" to a girl trainee right in the Oval Office. Boris, a graduate of Eton and Oxford, who did not comb his hair as a matter of principle and commuted by bicycle, became the mayor of London. Despite these changes, it was clear that the world political elite is neither willing nor able to change. Such moments often herald the rise of someone more odious, articulate, populist, and, regrettably, more dangerous. In the twenties of the twentieth century, it was Benito Mussolini, and in the 10s of the twenty-first century, Mussolini 2.0 appeared.

whenever the conversation was about Mussolini, first of all, three of his characteristics came to mind: deliberately theatrical poses, ridiculously swollen lips, calls to restore former greatness. We can talk a lot about Mussolini about his transformation from a pacifist socialist to a militaristic fascist, about his oratory, about his reckless economic policy, but I think most of the people who mention Mussolini will remember his puffy lips and his promise to return Italy to its former greatness. Personally, until 2016, I was sure that the time of such comical, at the same time dangerous and absurd personalities ended in the first half of the twentieth century. I was completely convinced of the incompetence of Mr. Trump's PR managers when they advised, or did not discourage, him from repeating the Duce's mimicry and slogans. As it turned out on November 4, 2016, I was very, very wrong. Even one disappointment awaited me after Trump took office. I thought that this similarity could be only at the level of visual and pre-election slogans. Today, it is well known to everyone, the harmfulness of isolationism for the economy. A positive effect is possible in rare cases, but only for an extremely short period of time. Trump dashed my hopes here and repeated the steps of his previous reincarnation. In short, the real Mussolini 2.0. The situation is even more dramatic ahead of the 2024 elections. Version 2.0 has been upgraded to Mussolini 2.1, and the rhetoric has become more aggressive, more uncompromising, more destructive.

Setting Trump aside for a moment, an individual's radical views alone typically do not cause harm.. Personally, I see a problem in my camp. In the camp that does not believe in militarism, isolationism, reactionism. I see an issue with those who believe they are forward-looking, yet seem anchored in the past.

I have never been a naive person and never thought that a politician (any politician conservative, liberal, socialist, capitalist, populist, idealist) thinks about anything but his own welfare. Nevertheless, I always thought that in the public space there is a large enough layer of those who sanely evaluate the processes and can give an adequate response to threats like Trump. As it turned out, I was very wrong. Without competition or new perspectives, the elite lost touch with reality, transforming a manageable challenge into a significant existential threat. Trump's strong showing in the 2016 election was inevitable. In a democratic society with strong institutions, the victory of populist leaders is only a challenge. At the same time, such challenges play a positive role even in the medium term, as they provide impetus for change and renewal. The only way a conservative, isolationist, populist challenge can turn into an opportunity is if it is countered by a renewed, open, more freedom-oriented outlook. We all know well what Trump faced in 2016 and 2020. But in 2021, complete absurdity began - Personalized attacks on the transmitter of populist ideas and, more importantly, the use of the legal system for political purposes. And this means shaking the system, the only thing that can actually stand in front of the victory of populism. Many people think that the independence of the legal system was a matter of someone's free will or, in extreme cases, a whim. No, gentlemen, this independence comes from the simple reason that the system will not work in any other way. The legal system loses legitimacy and trust when it even appears to be used by the government for personal retribution. Most of the steps taken before 2023 directly undermined the foundations of the legal system, thereby increasing the likelihood of a new March on Rome.

2023 brought us new and more important problems. Shockingly, it seems only the eighty-two-year-old incumbent president can challenge the conservative, populist candidate. It appears there's no effective counter to the conservative, populist ideology. The liberal camp's only response was to further destabilize the legal system. As if it's not bad enough for the legal system that Trump is fighting it. What can we call the demand for personal loyalty to judges if not a fight against the system? In this context, the controversial decision of the Colorado Supreme Court emerged. This was a new, personalized attack on a popular figure, and in my opinion, it significantly contributed to Trump's election campaign.