New Fascism and the Rise of the Far Right

In recent years, there has been growing interest at official, academic, media, and popular levels in the topic of new fascism and its relationship with the rise of far-right figures and parties in many European countries, the United States, and some developing countries, especially in Latin America. Donald Trump’s victory for a second presidential term in the 2024 elections has intensified this interest; he represents the far-right and has clear populist fascist tendencies. The rise of the far right marks a dangerous shift with political, economic, social, cultural, and security implications, as well as changes in the global order—representing the largest transformation since the rise of fascism between the two World Wars.

Undoubtedly, this transformation is closely linked to the social, economic, and cultural crises faced by capitalist countries in both the center and periphery, especially after adopting neoliberal policies—despite their proven failures post-2008 financial crisis—which exacerbated class disparities and pushed more social segments to the margins. All these conditions create a fertile ground for the rise of far-right parties and figures, appealing to broad sections of society desperate for solutions to their crises after their disillusionment with the liberal parties that have governed for decades.

What is New Fascism?

The term “new fascism” primarily refers to political and ideological groups and parties that emerged after 1945, particularly in Europe, inspired directly by fascist and Nazi experiences between the World Wars in Germany, Italy, and other European countries. These groups often included remnants of fascist and Nazi activists unwilling to abandon their political activities or ideologies despite military defeat. Many supporters of these organizations yearn for a bygone era and are distanced from the post-war liberal democratic institutions and culture, holding extreme, uncompromising views. They emphasize the “revolutionary” nature of fascism rather than its nationalistic version focused on building a strong state. Here, revolutionary character refers to the use of excessive violence against opponents, reminiscent of the atrocities committed by Nazism against their internal and external enemies and the repeated attacks on immigrants by the far right.

Recently, after the declassification of CIA documents, it has been revealed that the U.S. military and Secret Service protected many Nazi and fascist criminals after World War II and recruited them as soldiers and spies against socialist countries. The agency’s primary work involved embedding spies in those countries, as confirmed by its director Allen Dulles during his tenure from 1953-1961.

Despite the tarnished reputation of fascism, associated with racial discrimination after World War II and the success of Western European capitalist countries in establishing welfare states, fascism’s presence lingered on the fringes of mainstream politics. One of the most notable aspects of this new fascism is the almost total absence of the social and economic conditions that prevailed in the 1920s and 1930s when fascism originally thrived—conditions like political instability, severe economic distress, fear of communism’s expansion, a widespread sense of national humiliation, and frustrated aspirations. One contributing factor to the rise of contemporary fascists is immigration, particularly when the situation worsens due to economic stagnation, even without the acute economic crisis faced between the world wars. It is noteworthy that immigration issues are widely politicized for purely electoral purposes, as academic studies point to an urgent need for incoming immigration currently and in the coming years.

Since the 1970s, many right-wing anti-immigrant movements have emerged, influenced by the new right in Europe and America. These movements sometimes bear clear roots linked to old fascism and new fascism, but often publicly distance themselves from that past. Much recent scholarly discussion aims to reach a new consensus on a comprehensive definition of fascism, allowing for clearer classification of far-right and populist movements worldwide, distinguishing between genuine fascism and other fraudulent phenomena. Roger Griffin defines fascism as a form of political ideology whose mythical essence is embodied in a backward form of extreme populist nationalism.

Since the emergence of the new global socio-economic and political system after the collapse of the socialist bloc, new patterns of far-right parties and movements have largely replaced older extremist groups nostalgic for the fascist past, achieving significant electoral successes in many countries. In Western Europe, these parties do not overtly seek to overthrow democratic systems or advocate violence. Instead, they focus on issues of significant concern to many voters, particularly immigration and law and order. In contrast, the resurgence of the far right in Eastern Europe has taken the form of extreme nationalism, potentially rooted in interwar fascism or connected to fascist ideology. Here, immigration is not a primary factor as the region is largely repellent to migrants; instead, the legacy of wars and political developments, frequent reshaping of political maps, annexation of certain territories to other states, and the failure of socialist experiments may have contributed to the rise of this extreme nationalist trend.

Theoretical-Explanatory Aspect

Fascism’s disdain for thought leads it to avoid wasting time on constructing abstract theories about itself; however, this does not imply it is a blind practice or purely instinctive method. Fascism positions itself against all utopian systems that are not destined to withstand the test of reality, opposing all sciences and philosophies that remain merely matters of imagination or intelligence. Fascism does not deny the value of culture if higher intellectual pursuits serve to invigorate thought as a source of action—namely, guiding the actions it wants to implement, particularly efforts to distort people’s consciousness and distract them from the true causes of their social and economic problems.

Fascism’s politics revolve entirely around the concept of the nation-state, establishing connections with nationalist doctrines while also distinguishing itself from them, which is crucial to bear in mind. It sees itself as providing a solution to the contradiction between freedom and authority, insisting that state authority is absolute. The state does not resort to compromise or concede any part of its domain to other moral or religious principles that might interfere with individual conscience. On the other hand, the state only becomes a reality in the consciousness of its individuals. The participatory fascist state offers a more truthful and reality-connected representative system than any previously devised system, thus being freer than the old liberal state. Such ideas are advanced by contemporary far-right parties, whether directly or indirectly, as they criticize liberal political institutions and elites, accusing them of corruption.

The new right draws on theorists of the “conservative revolution” like Carl Schmitt and Oswald Spengler, as well as neoliberal theorists like Friedrich von Hayek, who favors liberal dictatorship. Consequently, he viewed the popular unity government elected in Chile in the early 1970s, led by Salvador Allende, as a dictatorship of oppression. The implementation of neoliberalism through violence in this country was seen as an achievement of “freedom,” a notion that reality later proved incorrect, as the application of neoliberal policies brought widespread social and economic disasters and deepened class disparities.

Alexander Dugin, the Russian political philosopher, has made his “Fourth Political Theory” a principle in the tendencies of globally organized and transnational fascism. His main thesis is that all political ideologies, except for liberalism, are outdated, and all opponents of liberalism must unite. This coalition should occur under the umbrella of a clear, traditional authoritarian social system.

In the 1920s and 1930s, rich Marxist studies on fascism arose, emphasizing various and diverse contradictions leading to the emergence of fascism; Marxist theory typically considers capitalism or liberalism as the source of fascism. The Marxist writers who have contributed to constructing a theoretical concept of fascism include Leon Trotsky, Georgi Dimitrov, Antonio Gramsci, Daniel Guerin, Palmiro Togliatti, and Nikos Poulantzas. Poulantzas argues that fascism should not be merely understood as a simple contradiction but rather emerges from highly complex contradictions.

All Marxist writings on fascism highlight its connections to capitalism. The most influential definition of fascism came from the Communist International in 1935, asserting that “the fascism in power is the overt terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinistic, and imperialist elements of finance capitalism.” The Communist International argued that the crisis suffered by capitalism was of such severity that it rendered conventional dictatorship inadequate; thus, capitalists employed the fascist movement to destroy socialism. This 1935 definition posits that fascism isn’t solely a “creation” of the capitalists, as it also relied on figures from the petty bourgeoisie who were severely disgruntled with big capital. This observation also applies to current far-right parties.

Some Marxists felt that this definition indiscriminately labels all dictatorial systems as fascist. Others believed that the petty bourgeoisie plays a more independent role, standing at odds with capitalist interests. Marxists adopted these critiques in the 1960s and 1970s in an effort to add flexibility to their model. However, most Marxists did not abandon their conviction that fascism fundamentally serves the interests of capitalism.

Dimitrov had begun to answer the question, what motivates large blocs of voters to join fascism, by stating: “What is the source of fascism’s influence on the masses? Fascism can attract masses because it demagogically addresses their most urgent needs and demands. Fascism not only fuels deeply rooted prejudices in the masses but also plays on their emotions, their sense of justice, and sometimes even their revolutionary traditions. Fascism aims to exploit the masses unrestrictedly while approaching them through the most demagogic anti-capitalist methods, tapping into the deep-seated hatred workers feel towards exploitative bourgeoisie, banks, trusts, and money barons.”

Currently, the Italian philosopher Umberto Eco, in his recently published book “Revisiting Fascism,” offers a description of fascism, asserting that the emergence of certain of its features must lead to a return of a “new fascism” that may be more brutal than Mussolini’s fascism. The transformation of fascism’s form does not imply that it cannot be uncovered; it shares, in all its forms—even those that have yet to emerge—14 characteristics that Eco believes represent the essence of any fascist system, which are: “Worship of tradition, absolute rejection of modernity, irrationalism, rejection of criticism and critical thought, fear of diversity, efforts to frustrate the middle classes, portrayal of opponents as enemies to be defeated with excessive force, dedication to the idea of permanent war and constant readiness for it, sanctification of populist thought and justification of contempt of any class for the class it subjugates, invention of mass heroes, even if fictional, use of simplistic populist discourse to address the people, sanctifying what is called leadership and masculinity, and exercising ‘qualitative populism’ against the denial of individual rights.” All of this is aimed at maintaining the ruling class’s power. As Ton van Dijk states, “History indicates that ideologies are often formed to legitimize the control of a ruling class, elite, or organization.”

The Relationship between the Far Right and New Fascism

Many writers reject applying the concept of fascism to describe the ideological direction of the current far right. This rejection is based on varied motivations and arguments, depending on each writer’s perspective and the theory they apply in their analysis. For example, Emilio Gentile rejects the distinction between concept and historical phenomenon, stating that the concept of fascism is the history of fascism itself, which has no predecessors in the 19th century and will not be repeated in the 21st. Armando Boito suggests that if we accept the complete equation of concept and historical reality as mentioned, it would prevent us from using other concepts, like democracy and dictatorship, to differentiate between various democracies and dictatorships we have encountered throughout history, rendering the use of political science impossible. This assertion is accurate and aligns with the reality of research across various fields of knowledge.

There does not seem to be a clearly distinct legacy of new fascism; instead, the principal legacy is the ideological heritage belonging to fascism rather than new fascism. The apparent acceptance of the new European far right of the democratic system might not reflect a true commitment; in reality, its intellectuals might still hold deeply-seated beliefs rooted in a mythical return to a golden authoritarian age. On another front, violent militaristic tendencies and warlike spirit have been marginalized, though this does not mean they are abandoned.

Since the end of World War II, it has become clear that there is a relationship between the atrocities of classical fascism during the interwar years and contemporary far-right movements in Europe. In the late 1940s and 1950s, any identified extremist nationalist groups were regarded as representing new fascism or neo-Nazism, partly because they harbored many followers of the former fascist regimes. Even now, news of far-right violence or electoral successes in Europe revives the specter of fascism in the minds of observers everywhere. Undoubtedly, the relationship between all far-right movements and the interwar years remains an unavoidable reality.

In the era of unipolarity, anti-Americanism takes center stage, as does opposition to globalization and incoming immigration. As cross-border cooperation increases, particularly due to the Internet, the new generation of far-right parties does not seem as interested in reviving international fascism, although this does not preclude relations, coordination, and collaboration among far-right parties, especially in Europe. This is evident in the European Parliament, where the bloc of these parties was strengthened during the elections held in 2024.

1. Germany
   After World War II, a significant number of former Nazis remained in Germany. The West German government feared the resurgence of extremism; thus, it banned anti-constitutional parties and prohibited their members from holding government positions. Nevertheless, numerous small neo-Nazi groups emerged, though they did not enjoy political significance and many of their members aged. However, a recent and more dangerous revival of neo-Nazi activities occurred in the early 1990s in response to incoming immigration, particularly from Eastern Europe.

The most recent far-right party is Alternative for Germany, founded in 2013, which was unable to enter the parliament that year. Since the 2017 elections, the party has become the largest opposition party and was the first far-right nationalist party to enter the parliament since the end of World War II. The party achieved significant successes in the 2024 regional elections in several states, particularly in the eastern part of the country, and has connections to neo-Nazi movements. It adopts racist positions against Muslims and immigrants in general.

2. Italy
   Italy remains the primary model for studying the fascist movement, which emerged there and seized power in the 1920s under Benito Mussolini, allying with Nazism. The economic, social, political crises, and wars, along with their ramifications, created a suitable environment for the growth of the fascist movement.

Italy became the first country in the European Union to be led by a more right-wing government under Giorgia Meloni, leader of the Brothers of Italy party with historical connections to new fascism, after the right-wing coalition comprising her party, the League, and Forza Italia won more than a third of the votes, estimated at 44 percent, in the 2022 elections. The historical roots of the Brothers of Italy party, founded in 2012 by Meloni, trace back to the Italian Social Movement party established post-World War II, led by Giorgio Almirante, chief of staff in Mussolini’s final government, and included supporters of fascism. The party engaged in political activities for three decades following the war as a small right-wing party.

In the 1990s, the party underwent a new transformation under Gianfranco Fini, influenced by new fascism, who viewed Mussolini as the greatest statesman of the 20th century. However, Fini attempted to present a less extreme image by renaming the party the National Alliance. Under his leadership, Meloni joined the alliance and advanced within it. Although she admired Mussolini, she visited the “Yad Vashem” Holocaust memorial in Israel during her tenure as Minister of Youth in Silvio Berlusconi’s government in 2009. This position served as an attempt to get closer to the pro-Israel lobby on European and global levels.

3. Russia
   For a while after the collapse of the Soviet Union, some features that had previously fueled the growth and development of fascism in Italy emerged. Russia continued to experience hyperinflation, approaching 2000 percent annually, and industrial production in the former Soviet Union fell by about 40 percent in 1994.

This was the era when Vladimir Zhirinovsky achieved his greatest successes, armed with familiar fascist ideas and gaining 22.8 percent of the vote in the 1993 elections. One report noted that 43 percent of Russian military personnel in Tajikistan voted for Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party. However, support for him and his party waned for various reasons. Zhirinovsky is considered a “modern populist” and one of the pillars of Putin’s regime by assimilating the voices of angry, disillusioned voters and hardline right-wingers, remaining a member of the Duma until his death in 2022.

4. Brazil
   Brazil represents a case study of new fascism emerging in a non-European developing country, making this experience worthy of study and drawing lessons that might benefit other developing nations facing similar tendencies. This experience spanned four years (2019-2022) during the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro and his movement.

The Bolsonaro movement originated from large street demonstrations in 2015 and 2016 demanding the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff, the first woman to hold this position from 2011 to 2016. The fascist movement, as a regressive formation, relies on the petty bourgeoisie and the middle class, more precisely its upper portion. This movement also includes small owners—the highly organized and independent segment of truck owners, which had a right-wing fascist orientation from the outset. Anthropologist Isabella Khalil has studied for three years the trends of right-wing demonstrators in Brazil through interviews during protests, identifying eleven main elements present in Bolsonaro’s discourse and that of his supporters against: corruption, communism, the left, feminism, politicians, parties, abortion, homosexuality, privileges, and the system. Commonalities can be observed between this discourse and that of far-right figures and parties in other countries, particularly in Europe.

In original fascism, the dominant bourgeoisie was the major imperial bourgeoisie, contrastingly, in a dependent country, fascism organizes the dominance of foreign imperial capital alongside the local bourgeoisie connected to that capital. Consequently, neoliberalism and political programs expand the openness of dependent economies to imperial capital, while fascism, as a particular type of dictatorship, does not contradict neoliberalism. Thus, Bolsonaro’s government belongs to both new fascism and neoliberalism simultaneously. According to Armando Boito, Brazil’s bourgeois democracy is facing crisis and deterioration.

The Far Right and Incoming Immigration

Incoming immigration has become a political issue in several Western European countries, especially during times of economic hardship. In these increasingly common circumstances during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, racial discrimination could be easily manipulated by parties with fascist and Nazi orientations. According to Ian Adams, it seems that the new fascism is nothing more than organized racial hatred in a political sense. Certainly, this is the case in France, Germany, the United States, and the UK.

Setting aside the classification issue, one might argue that the far right in Western Europe today, as opposed to during the Cold War, has had to adapt to liberal democracy, thus sidelining its “revolutionary” ideas. However, violence has not necessarily been curtailed, as attacks against immigrants continue by sympathizers of the far right. Anti-Semitism has retreated in Western Europe, while anti-Muslim sentiments have emerged. In Eastern Europe, however, the former remains prevalent.

Dijk states, “From this thesis, we understand that racist ideologies are not an abstract system that randomly fell from the sky onto European society; rather, they are beliefs historically, socially, and culturally ingrained in the social minds of many Europeans, which, to a degree, shape their implicit beliefs about others. For example, more than two-thirds of the residents of Western Europe today oppose the arrival of more immigrants.” This contrasts with the urgent need for migrant labor in Europe due to declining natural population growth, a fact recently acknowledged by various countries including Germany, France, Spain, and Hungary.

1. Germany
   West Germany had formerly maintained a very liberal policy towards incoming immigration, welcoming many “guest workers,” especially from Turkey. However, rising unemployment in the 1980s contributed to the growth of new fascism, fueled by fear and resentment towards immigration. This situation remained under control during that decade due to the strong and prosperous German economy, leading most Germans to view their economic issues as temporary.

This situation changed due to two interconnected factors: firstly, the collapse of socialist regimes in Eastern Europe and the ensuing economic chaos that increased the flow of migrants from this region toward the wealthier west. Secondly, the reunification of Germany in 1990 after the collapse of East Germany, which did not achieve immediate success. Economic restructuring caused massive unemployment in East Germany, threatening the prosperity of West Germany. Combined with the potential of incoming immigration amid economic turmoil, this created fertile ground for the growth of new fascism. Consequently, there was a rapid growth in neo-Nazi groups and attacks on immigrants, especially in East Germany. The newly established Republican Party emerged as the leading far-right party at that time post-1989, with a platform advocating for the repatriation of immigrants to their countries of origin.

2. France
   Similarly, incoming immigration and concerns about future prospects fuel new fascist activities in France. Much of this immigration links back to France’s colonial legacy, with significant numbers of migrants from North African countries, compounded by expectations that many newcomers will seek to enter the country due to economic problems and civil wars in several nations within that region, thus increasing anti-immigrant sentiments.

Jean-Marie Le Pen established a far-right party in 1972, but it garnered greater prominence during the economic recession and rising unemployment in the early 1980s when the National Front won seats in the French National Assembly and the European Parliament. When unemployment reached three million, Le Pen claimed that the deportation of three million immigrants would resolve the problem “in one fell swoop.” He spoke against the burgeoning Islamization of parts of France and the consequent threat to French identity and culture. The immigration issue seems poised to gain increasing significance and may be a source of growing support for the far right in the future. The National Front nearly topped the National Assembly elections held in 2024, only to be outpaced by the left alliance’s initiative that secured first place.

Trumpism

The term Trumpism has grown widely used, particularly among political analysts, media personnel, and writers, during Trump’s first presidential term (2017-2021), with heightened interest following his victory in the 2024 election. Studying Trumpism presents methodological difficulties, as its figure lacks a coherent political-economic thought and is characterized by moodiness and fluctuating opinions. Moreover, his political rise did not come progressively through political institutions but emerged from outside, specifically from the real estate and financial sector, lacking substantial experience in managing state affairs.

Indeed, analyzing the implications of Trump’s victory in the 2024 election will take time before a complete picture can be formed. Not everything is as clear as it may seem at first glance. As Karl Marx stated, “All sciences would be superfluous if the character of the outer appearance and the essence of things completely coincided.”

Regarding the reasons for Trump’s victory, it seems the economic aspect played a pivotal role. The difficult economic conditions in the country, rising living costs, housing, and inflation became central concerns for voters. Exit polls indicated that two-thirds of voters believed the economy was in bad or not good condition, with 69 percent voting for Trump. Furthermore, the most regressive and extreme factions of the capitalist class united to support an experienced dictator capable of mobilizing a mass movement from contradictory forces behind him. This represents the classic formula for fascism.

Worse still, unlike in 2016 when he won, Trump is unlikely to act impulsively this time. He will enter the White House with a fully formulated agenda for billionaires—Project 2025—targeting the working class, unions, people of color, immigrants, women, LGBTQ individuals, senior medical care, social security, assisted medical care, climate change legislation, and more. Major tax cuts for the wealthy and reductions in public services for the rest are expected. He has already signed several executive orders related to this since his first day in office, clearly serving the major corporations that financed his campaign through hefty donations.

As for Trump’s expected foreign policy, “Despite indications based on Trump’s vision and his nominations for core administration positions, his moodiness, erratic behavior, and lack of a coherent ideological framework will complicate predictions regarding his foreign policy.” This represents one of the difficult periods requiring coordination among peace and democracy forces to compel Trump to respect the rights of others and accept geopolitical realities.

Trump’s prior administration has become a subject of study and analysis, yielding important conclusions. Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election and the subsequent support he managed to maintain while in office perplexed many observers. For instance, Wendy Brown, Peter Gordon, and Max Pensky note that Trump’s rise, alongside the rise of contemporary populist right-wing movements, does not conform to the accepted classifications in political analysis. Among the primary puzzles presented by Trumpism for such observers is its lack of ideological coherence. This characteristic also applies to fascism in Italy during Mussolini’s era.

Despite the survival of American democratic institutions during Trump’s presidency, they have been severely weakened. Furthermore, the Republican party has transformed into an extreme anti-democratic force, jeopardizing the American constitutional system. The United States does not appear to be heading toward a dictatorship in the Russian or Hungarian manner, as some analysts have warned, but toward something else: a protracted period of systemic instability characterized by recurrent constitutional crises, increasing political violence, and potentially episodes of authoritarian rule.

Although Trump has facilitated this shift toward autocracy, the radicalization of the Republican party is driven by strong grassroots pressure; the party’s primary voters are white Christians living in suburbs, small towns, and rural areas. It is not merely the decline of white Christians as a percentage of voters; the increasing diversity and progress toward racial equality have also undermined their relative social status. Many Republican voters feel that their childhood country is being taken away from them. A 2021 survey conducted by the American Enterprise Institute found that 56 percent of Republicans agreed that “the traditional American way of life is disappearing so rapidly that we may have to use force to stop it.” This has led some observers to suggest the possibility of a civil war.

These views reflect the intensification of class struggle in the United States, requiring the resolution of this conflict in favor of the affected classes and groups, albeit gradually, through political, intellectual, and cultural battles and struggles to halt the advance of the far right and reclaim initiative for leftist and democratic forces opposing this trend. The danger posed by the rise of the far right is not limited to the United States; it is likely to reflect in the strengthening of this wing in Europe and worldwide.

Footnotes
(1) Bosworth R. J. B. The Oxford Handbook of Fascism, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 586.
(2) Ibid., p. 593.
(3) Ian Adams, Political ideology today, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1993, pp. 249-250.
(4) For more, see Hashim Naama, “On Characteristics of Populism,” New Culture, Issue 447, September 2024, pp. 46-57.
(5) Bosworth, p. 601.
(6) Ibid., p. 587.
(7) Paul Schumaker (ed.), The Political Theory Reader, Oxford, Wiley Blackwell, 2010, p. 58.
(8) Ibid., pp. 59-60.
(9) Rashid Gweelab (trans.), European Left Forces: Financial Crisis and Alternative Policies, Baghdad: Al-Ruwad Al-Muzdahar, 2015, p. 232.
(10) New Traditional Golden Age – Far Right and Backward Capitalism / Natasha Strobble, trans. Rashid Gweelab, November 12, 2022.
(11) Armando Boito, Reform and Political Crisis in Brazil, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018, p. 190.
(12) Kevin Basmour, Fascism: A Very Short Introduction, trans. Rehab Salah El-Din, Cairo: Hindawi Foundation, 2014, p. 23.
(13) Ibid., p. 23-24.
(14) C.J. Atkins, “Tomorrow Morning: A Marxist Analysis of Trump’s Victory,” People’s World website (Communist Party USA), November 6, 2024.
(15) New Antithought Fascism as Exposed by Umberto Eco / Culture / Al Jazeera.
(16) Ton van Dijk, Ideology and Discourse, trans. Said Bakar and Lahcen Boutkhlai, Beirut: Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, 2023, p. 50.
(17) Boito, p. 188.
(18) Bosworth, pp. 603-604.
(19) Roger Griffin, (ed.) International Fascism, London: Arnold:1998, p. 305.
(20) Bosworth, pp. 603-604.
(21) Griffin, p. 305.
(22) Alternative for Germany – Wikipedia, December 3, 2024.
(23) Aya Abdulaziz, “Potential Threat! The Rise of Far-Right Parties in Sweden and Italy,” Trends of Events, Issue 34, November-December 2022, p. 53.
(24) Ibid., p. 53.
(25) James A. Gregor, Phoenix: Fascism in our Time: USA/UK, Transaction Publishers, 2002, pp. 150-151.
(26) Ibid., pp. 150-151.
(27) The Departure of Russian Populist Politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky at 75, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, April 6, 2022.
(28) Boito, p. 191.
(29) Ibid., pp. 189-190.
(30) Adams, pp. 249-250.
(31) Bosworth, p. 603.
(32) Dijk, p. 56.
(33) Adams, pp. 250-251.
(34) Ibid., p. 251.
(35) Atkins.
(36) Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, U.S. Presidential Elections: Reasons for Trump’s Victory and Possible Consequences, Doha: November 11, 2024, p. 1.
(37) Atkins.
(38) Ibid.
(39) Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, Trump’s Second Presidency Foreign Policy: Vision and Expectations, Doha: November 18, 2024, p. 5.
(40) Jeremiah Morelock (ed.) How to Critique Authoritarian Populism, Leiden, Brill, 2021, p. 366.
(41) Foreign Affairs, January 20, 2022.
(42) Ibid.