In recent political discourse, terms like “strongman” have been bandied about to describe influential and often controversial leaders across the world. From Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, the strongman label has been applied to individuals who exhibit populist, authoritarian traits and a penchant for dominating the political landscape. Yet, while some commentators have used the same terminology to describe figures like Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, it is essential to critically examine whether these two men truly fit the mold of the classic “strongman” leader, or whether this label misrepresents their roles in contemporary politics.
The concept of the “strongman” leader typically refers to a political figure who centralizes power, undermines democratic institutions, and rules with an iron fist. These leaders tend to eschew traditional norms of governance, often using populist rhetoric and promising to restore national greatness by wielding extraordinary authority. They often employ methods of control that include stoking division, attacking the media, and curbing civil liberties, while relying on nationalism and sometimes even authoritarian policies to maintain their grip on power.
Donald Trump: The Populist Outsider, Not a ‘Strongman’
Donald Trump’s tenure as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 brought his persona as a populist outsider into the spotlight. His supporters celebrated him as a figure who defied the political establishment and brought a brash, unapologetic style to the White House. His rhetoric, often inflammatory, seemed to resonate with voters who felt alienated by traditional politics. However, despite his unorthodox style, Trump did not entirely fit the mold of a “strongman” leader.
Trump’s brand of populism was rooted in grievance and a promise to “drain the swamp” of Washington, but his tenure was marked by a continual struggle to consolidate power in the ways typical of strongman figures. Rather than systematically dismantling democratic institutions, Trump remained highly reliant on the mechanisms of democracy – elections, checks and balances, and the judiciary. While his rhetoric was at times authoritarian, particularly in his attacks on the media and his rhetoric about political opponents, he never completely overhauled the democratic structures of the United States.
Moreover, Trump’s foreign policy was largely characterized by a transactional approach, rather than the display of absolute authority associated with strongmen. His so-called “America First” approach focused on national interests and a disdain for multilateralism but stopped short of imposing dictatorial control. His leadership style, though controversial and unconventional, involved navigating the complexities of American democracy, relying on public opinion, and seeking reelection, rather than outright consolidating power.
In contrast to the “strongman” archetype, Trump’s administration faced multiple investigations, legal challenges, and an ongoing battle with the media. If anything, his presidency highlighted the strength of American democratic institutions, as they repeatedly tested and restrained his actions. His eventual impeachment, though controversial, demonstrated that even the president of the United States was not above the law – a notion that contradicts the strongman model, where leaders typically act with impunity.
Nigel Farage: The Ideological Firebrand, Not a ‘Strongman’
Nigel Farage, a leading figure in the Brexit movement and former leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), is often portrayed as a populist who helped to shape British politics through his advocacy for Britain’s exit from the European Union. Farage’s role in the political landscape has been marked by his fiery rhetoric and unabashed criticism of the establishment, positioning himself as the voice of the “forgotten” people. Like Trump, Farage’s influence cannot be ignored, but the strongman label does not accurately reflect his political style or methods.
Farage’s political career has been built on the appeal to British nationalism and Euroscepticism. His success in championing Brexit tapped into populist sentiment and reflected a broader dissatisfaction with the European Union. However, despite his role in driving a significant political movement, Farage has never held a position of executive power, making him fundamentally different from true strongman leaders. He has been a political outsider rather than someone who has centralized power and dominated political decision-making from within government institutions.
Unlike authoritarian figures who often manipulate political structures to secure long-term control, Farage’s political career has largely been centered around agitation and advocacy. His ability to stir up debates, generate media coverage, and rally support for causes like Brexit should not be conflated with the kind of centralized, authoritarian power that is characteristic of strongmen. Farage’s influence is ideological, not based on holding office or wielding executive power. He has repeatedly failed to secure a significant role in government, and his political interventions are more about shaking up the system rather than dismantling it entirely.
Additionally, Farage’s tenure in the European Parliament, where he served as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for several years, was marked by a degree of institutional restraint. Although he often used his platform to rail against the EU and its policies, his position did not afford him the kind of unchecked authority that would qualify him as a strongman figure. His political ideology and influence were constrained by the very democratic systems he criticized.
Misapplication of the ‘Strongman’ Label
The tendency to label both Trump and Farage as “strongmen” risks conflating the popular appeal of these figures with the attributes of authoritarianism. While both men used populist rhetoric and promoted nationalist agendas, they did not engage in the kinds of political practices that are the hallmarks of true strongmen.
True strongmen often dismantle political checks and balances, suppress opposition, and centralize power in their own hands. They typically engage in undermining democratic norms and are often characterized by a disregard for the rule of law. Neither Trump nor Farage fully embraced such tactics. Trump, despite his criticisms of the political establishment, never made a full break with democratic norms, and his tenure was defined by continual struggle against institutional resistance. Farage, on the other hand, has been more of a disruptive force outside of formal government structures, challenging the political status quo without seeking to reshape the entire political system in an authoritarian image.
The portrayal of both men as “strongmen” is more a reflection of their polarizing nature and the disruptive force they represent within their respective political landscapes. Both have used populist rhetoric to garner support and challenge the political establishment, but their methods and goals are distinct from those of authoritarian leaders who systematically erode democratic institutions.
Conclusion
Donald Trump and Nigel Farage may embody certain populist tendencies and serve as voices for nationalist movements, but they do not meet the classic criteria of “strongman” leaders. Trump, during his time in office, struggled to consolidate absolute power, while Farage has never held executive authority to enact the kind of sweeping, authoritarian reforms that define true strongmen. Instead of labeling them as strongmen, it is more accurate to view them as populist figures who have harnessed popular sentiment to challenge the political establishment, without resorting to the extreme, authoritarian methods of true strongmen. Thus, the term “strongman” does not aptly describe these figures and risks oversimplifying the complexities of their political roles.
