Anti-establishment turmoil: Most democratic world leaders have a negative approval ratings net

[Red Velvet]

Morning Consult maintains this tracking of world leaders approval and only SIX out of the 22 leaders tracked have a positive bet approval.

And even then, 5 out of those 6 still have 33% disapproval or more, showing a third of their population is against them. Are widely popular leaderships a thing from the past in democracies with the surge of social media?

And if that’s the case, does this weaken or strengthen democracies? On one hand you have much more internal instability these days because of this but it can be argued that people dissent can also push leaders to be more in-line with the population demands since they’re not as safe like in the past. What do you think?

Morning Consult tracking as of June 7-13, 2023:

APPROVAL NET POSITIVE:

1. Narendra Modi (India) +54 net (75 approve vs 21 disapprove)
2. Alain Berset (Switzerland) +23 net (56 vs 33)
3. AMLO (Mexico) +22 net (59 vs 37)
4. Anthony Albanese (Australia) +18 net (53 vs 35)
5. Giorgia Meloni (Italy) +3 net (49 vs 46)
5. Lula da Silva (Brazil) +3 net (49 vs 46)

APPROVAL NET NEGATIVE:

7. Alexander De Croo (Belgium) -4 net (41 vs 45)
8. Joe Biden (USA) -12 net (40 vs 52)
9. Pedro Sanchez (Spain) -14 net (40 vs 54)
10. Justin Trudeau (Canada) -15 net (39 vs 54)
11. Leo Varadkar (Ireland) -16 net (37 vs 53)
12. Ulf Kristersson (Sweden) -21 net (33 vs 54)
13. Rishi Sunak (UK) -24 net (32 vs 56)
14. Fumio Kishida (Japan) -27 net (30 vs 57)
15. Mateusz Morawiecki (Poland) -31 net (30 vs 61)
15. Jonas Gahr Store (Norway) - 31 net (32 vs 63)
15. Karl Nehammer (Austria) -31 net (31 vs 62)
18. Olaf Scholz (Germany) -33 net (30 vs 63)
19. Emmanuel Macron (France) -38 net (28 vs 66)
20. Mark Rutte (Netherlands) -39 net (27 vs 66)
21. Petr Fiala (Czech Republic) -49 net (23 vs 72)
21. Yoon Seok-youl (South Korea) -49 net (22 vs 71)

I like seeing this rank because it’s based on what the average of people living the reality of everyday in each country think.

Naturally, you gotta take into consideration that people in each place have different criterias, priorities and background/circumstances, so it isn’t appropriate as direct comparison between the leaders quality but still a good way to see how much each leaders have a “mandate” of their own by representing their people wishes.

And it’s really striking how most leaders nowadays seem to be more disliked than anything, even ones that were reelected! Macron for example, recently got reelected with 58% on a runoff but still is disapproved by two thirds of his people! I know it’s because many Melenchon voters who voted for him disliked Le Pen even more but it’s still impressive to see stuff like this.

It shows how fragmented and polarized public opinion has become in a sense that you don’t even need to be more liked than disliked in order to win elections, you just need to be the “least disliked”, I guess. I wonder how good this is for democracy. Will it strengthen it by weakening ~cults of personality~ or will help drive democracy to its collapse because people can’t seem to agree on anything for long these days, bringing constant instability and uncertainty?

[CumbrianLefty]

Yes, that is a strikingly low rating for Macron.

Bet that Sunak's has fallen a bit further in just the past week, too.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

If what you are trying to say is that you prefer dictatorship, I am sure arrangements could be made for Bolsonaro to become dictator of Brazil. I hear that he is looking for a job, and he is interested in the position.

Since you seem to be so dissatisfied with democracy and so enthusiastic about anti-establishmentarianism, perhaps that would be more to your liking.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

A bit surprised Yoon is that unpopular.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's insane how high Modi's approvals are 9 years in

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's insane how high Modi's approvals are 9 years in

Yeah I was surprised too.
Maybe this is way too early to guess anything, but Modi really is the new Indira Gandhi in how popular he has been in an enduring way despite having been on the scene for such a long time.
Anti-incumbency? What anti-incumbency?

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's insane how high Modi's approvals are 9 years in

Yeah I was surprised too.
Maybe this is way too early to guess anything, but Modi really is the new Indira Gandhi in how popular he has been in an enduring way despite having been on the scene for such a long time.
Anti-incumbency? What anti-incumbency?

Modi like Indira does have a cult of personality too . When I last visited India , you could see his picture almost everywhere (on rickshaws , on stores , one restaurants etc) and one time a rickshaw driver in an unprompted manner start telling me how great he is when he passed by a building that had his photo .  When I visited India prior to Modi , you almost never saw a photo of the Prime Minister anywhere and people generally seemed to hate politicians regardless of party .

I would say a lot of this has to do with the rise of social media . Prior to the mid 2010s , very few people had access to Wi-Fi and that included many UMC Indians too while now the vast majority of street vendors have access to a smart phone and a data plan . That means far far more people have access to social media in a way that didn’t exist before and Modi and the BJP have been absolutely masterful in their usage of social media and smart phones in general that has allowed him to control the narrative in unprecedented ways .

An example of this , is that Modi has created an app for himself where the BJP is able to push Modi message on a daily basis , give their interpretation of the daily news and even respond to what unfriendly media outlets post too and I have seen family members use it . It’s insanely effective and that’s probably a huge part of his success.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's insane how high Modi's approvals are 9 years in

Yeah I was surprised too.
Maybe this is way too early to guess anything, but Modi really is the new Indira Gandhi in how popular he has been in an enduring way despite having been on the scene for such a long time.
Anti-incumbency? What anti-incumbency?

Modi like Indira does have a cult of personality too . When I last visited India , you could see his picture almost everywhere (on rickshaws , on stores , one restaurants etc) and one time a rickshaw driver in an unprompted manner start telling me how great he is when he passed by a building that had his photo .  When I visited India prior to Modi , you almost never saw a photo of the Prime Minister anywhere and people generally seemed to hate politicians regardless of party .

I would say a lot of this has to do with the rise of social media . Prior to the mid 2010s , very few people had access to Wi-Fi and that included many UMC Indians too while now the vast majority of street vendors have access to a smart phone and a data plan . That means far far more people have access to social media in a way that didn’t exist before and Modi and the BJP have been absolutely masterful in their usage of social media and smart phones in general that has allowed him to control the narrative in unprecedented ways .

An example of this , is that Modi has created an app for himself where the BJP is able to push Modi message on a daily basis , give their interpretation of the daily news and even respond to what unfriendly media outlets post too and I have seen family members use it . It’s insanely effective and that’s probably a huge part of his success.

How long until, you think, he can be considered to have racked up more electoral victories (taking into account both scale and numerical general victories) than Indira?

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's insane how high Modi's approvals are 9 years in

Yeah I was surprised too.
Maybe this is way too early to guess anything, but Modi really is the new Indira Gandhi in how popular he has been in an enduring way despite having been on the scene for such a long time.
Anti-incumbency? What anti-incumbency?

Modi like Indira does have a cult of personality too . When I last visited India , you could see his picture almost everywhere (on rickshaws , on stores , one restaurants etc) and one time a rickshaw driver in an unprompted manner start telling me how great he is when he passed by a building that had his photo .  When I visited India prior to Modi , you almost never saw a photo of the Prime Minister anywhere and people generally seemed to hate politicians regardless of party .

I would say a lot of this has to do with the rise of social media . Prior to the mid 2010s , very few people had access to Wi-Fi and that included many UMC Indians too while now the vast majority of street vendors have access to a smart phone and a data plan . That means far far more people have access to social media in a way that didn’t exist before and Modi and the BJP have been absolutely masterful in their usage of social media and smart phones in general that has allowed him to control the narrative in unprecedented ways .

An example of this , is that Modi has created an app for himself where the BJP is able to push Modi message on a daily basis , give their interpretation of the daily news and even respond to what unfriendly media outlets post too and I have seen family members use it . It’s insanely effective and that’s probably a huge part of his success.

How long until, you think, he can be considered to have racked up more electoral victories (taking into account both scale and numerical general victories) than Indira?

He’d need to stay in power till May 2030 to surpass Indira in tenure as PM and if he stays in power till May of 2031 he’d even surpass Nehru to become the longest serving PM in general . Also keep in mind Indira did lose an election before coming back so if Modi wins again , then he’d almost certainly surpass her in consecutive years spent as PM (though he’d still need to be in till 2031 to surpass Nehru in that ).

The BJP may very well keep him as leader till then because post Modi there likely will be major issues in the party between Moderates who want the BJP to be more like they were under Vajpayee and the hardliners who don’t think Modi has gone far enough and support people like Yogi . Modi being the realigning leader gets the benefit of being the leader who brought the party to the promised land so both sides like him for that but any post Modi leader won’t get that benefit and you likely will see divisions arise .

That’s why no matter how overwhelmingly powerful a party gets , they will lose power at some point cause eventually tensions will form in your party which opposition parties take advantage off . So I could see Modi becoming the longest tenured PM but I see no way in which the BJP can surpass the INC’s 30 year  run in power

[PSOL]

A pay to play system locks out the vast majority of people.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Citizens in liberal democracies are allowed to dislike their leaders. That's good. I'm not talking countries like North Korea where you're actively forced to approve of your leader - I'm talking lying strongmen like Erdogan, Bibi, Modi, Orban, Putin and Xi who lie to enough people to cause a cult of personality that socially enforces approval of the leader by making disapproval socially undesirable (some with more success than more).

The people of Hungary have nothing to be proud of compared to the people of France - they're a gullible and pathetic population, lied to by their leaders to hate their vulnerable LGBT and minority neighbors, and in most of their country socially forced to be supporters of the regime or else they'd be Soros-backing weirdos. Bibi has successfully made "leftist" a swear word in Israel,though his corruption and cowardice caused him to flop and become unpopular with the right wing population. Israelis have nothing to be proud of in their ideological uniformity (right to center right is an overwhelming majority) - they're a gullible and pathetic population, believing their leaders' lies to become insanely racist and create a situation where nazi-esque rhetoric is more acceptable than liberal rhetoric in the Jewish state. It's sad, and nothing to be proud of. I'm proud of the western democracies where there's no ideological uniformity and no one has to like or approve of their leader.

[Zinneke]

Citizens in liberal democracies are allowed to dislike their leaders. That's good. I'm not talking countries like North Korea where you're actively forced to approve of your leader - I'm talking lying strongmen like Erdogan, Bibi, Modi, Orban, Putin and Xi who lie to enough people to cause a cult of personality that socially enforces approval of the leader by making disapproval socially undesirable (some with more success than more).

The people of Hungary have nothing to be proud of compared to the people of France - they're a gullible and pathetic population, lied to by their leaders to hate their vulnerable LGBT and minority neighbors, and in most of their country socially forced to be supporters of the regime or else they'd be Soros-backing weirdos. Bibi has successfully made "leftist" a swear word in Israel,though his corruption and cowardice caused him to flop and become unpopular with the right wing population. Israelis have nothing to be proud of in their ideological uniformity (right to center right is an overwhelming majority) - they're a gullible and pathetic population, believing their leaders' lies to become insanely racist and create a situation where nazi-esque rhetoric is more acceptable than liberal rhetoric in the Jewish state. It's sad, and nothing to be proud of. I'm proud of the western democracies where there's no ideological uniformity and no one has to like or approve of their leader.

I agree with you on the first point, I'd also add that the trial and error process of selecting elected officials is a sign of a vibrant democracy - provided the electoral system itself provides for this ability. There still remains a core issue which is that elite formation in the West has been gangrened by a series of huge problems, ranging from the "new aristocracy" that ensures the best school positions, jobs and opportunities are reserved for the sons and daughters of elites in protected communities rather than a broader range of profiles (and I am not referring to racial or gender diversity here, in fact, when you look at an institution like the IMF, the directors boast they have "as many nationalities and races as possible", but fail to mention these all came from the same 5 universities, and therein lies the problem)...and then other problems like social media turning the thing into a game of who can essentially innovate their message enough to scandalise and "interact" the most.

On the second point though, while I obviously agree with opposing the Orbanism, I still think this is a classic case of  liberals liking to treat the symptoms and not the causes. Hungary was arguably on track to be the more progressive of the Central European countries and Orban exploited a deep sense of instability and fear that stemmed from basically untapped, uncontrolled neo-liberalism and exploited this to a tee. Rural Hungarians were never going to vote for progressives when everyone under 30 in their village moved to South West Germany to wait tables and the EU model essentially turned Hungary into Budapest + the rest. We should have controlled free movement better, it was always a trojan horse by neo-liberals to entice progressives, in the end it created a clear core and periphery in Europe at least and the Periphery is voting out their politicians because they cannot guarantee the high living standards promised by having unfettered free trade. I'm sure it's a similar story in the US, if not hyper-accentuated by the fact that its labour mobility is far more effective due to the common language. I don't buy the idea that Americans, especially elderly ones, aren't as proud of their communities as Europeans : seeing your village emptied of talented young people in favour of the rat race in some soulless global city like SF is an inherent factor in alienation from mainstream political classes, as these tend to be the ones to inhabit the metropolises.

[CumbrianLefty]

I mostly agree with that, but there's still no inherent need for people in places like Hungary or Israel (or come to that, the "pro-Trump" half of the US) to swallow obviously dishonest demagogic bilge as easily as they do. To an extent, you could say the same about many of those in my country who just totally wanted to "believe" in Brexit and BoJo. We badly need a revival of critical thinking, inter alia.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Unpopular, contrarian opinion: low approval ratings are just as likely to be an indication of lively public debate as they are of poor performance.

[PSOL]

30% is about as many people needed to keep a country hostage to a select patronage network, as is it in Iran or Turkmenistan. Once you get any lower than that is when an outside force needs to support the protectorate, as NATO and US troops do for the Czech Republic or South Korea to prevent upheaval from the national bourgeoisie as opposed to The US/German auto makers.

[GeneralMacArthur]

This is probably going to be true for the rest of human existence now that we've unleashed the internet upon humanity.  It's just much easier to convince someone to hate than it is to undo that.

Democracies by their nature restrict the power of their leaders.  So the leader comes to power, people immediately hoist all the problems of the nation upon them, but they don't have the power to fix them immediately, so the people quickly turn on them.

This also happens in authoritarian countries, but the people in those countries are either kept unaware of problems or bludgeoned into submission by an endless torrent of state propaganda, and leaders have more power to make populist moves, such as brutalizing minorities or redistributing wealth or starting a great patriotic war, that raise their overall rating.

The internet has been the greatest force for negativity and cynicism the world has ever seen and people these days are doused in a daily deluge of negative news.  Then they go to their social bubbles where for 70% of people it's "everything is awful and here's who we hate for it" even if that "hatred" takes the form of cruel mockery and condescension.  This is true regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

It's useful for a politician to feel insecure about popular support. This protects against voluntarism.

[CumbrianLefty]

This is probably going to be true for the rest of human existence now that we've unleashed the internet upon humanity

I mean, this is just so historically illiterate.

As with the printing press and broadcast signals, the internet can be - and is - used for both good and ill. Blaming it for where we are now is simply facile and unserious.

[Upper Canada Tory]

This is perfectly normal. It's called democracy and freedom of expression - people are supposed to be critical of their leaders. I'd rather have that than some authoritarian government where the leader has an 80% approval rating and people are expected to worship the leader in the streets.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Citizens in liberal democracies are allowed to dislike their leaders. That's good. I'm not talking countries like North Korea where you're actively forced to approve of your leader - I'm talking lying strongmen like Erdogan, Bibi, Modi, Orban, Putin and Xi who lie to enough people to cause a cult of personality that socially enforces approval of the leader by making disapproval socially undesirable (some with more success than more).

The people of Hungary have nothing to be proud of compared to the people of France - they're a gullible and pathetic population, lied to by their leaders to hate their vulnerable LGBT and minority neighbors, and in most of their country socially forced to be supporters of the regime or else they'd be Soros-backing weirdos. Bibi has successfully made "leftist" a swear word in Israel,though his corruption and cowardice caused him to flop and become unpopular with the right wing population. Israelis have nothing to be proud of in their ideological uniformity (right to center right is an overwhelming majority) - they're a gullible and pathetic population, believing their leaders' lies to become insanely racist and create a situation where nazi-esque rhetoric is more acceptable than liberal rhetoric in the Jewish state. It's sad, and nothing to be proud of. I'm proud of the western democracies where there's no ideological uniformity and no one has to like or approve of their leader.

I strongly sympathize with this sentiment. There's nothing more undemocratic than having a strongman leader trying to pressure the entire population of a country (or even the bulk of the population) to try to become their eternal followers.

Politicians, including heads of government, are our public servants. They work for us, not the other way around. Let's start treating them as such. It is perfectly fine to be critical of them and hold them accountable. I'd be much more concerned about an 80% approval rating (which usually denotes a leader with cult of personality) as opposed to a 40% approval rating, which denotes a healthy base of support but also with sufficient debate and opposition.

[PSOL]

Having a 40% approval rating in most cases isn’t good, especially in multiparty democracies reliant on coalitions. These politicians are just unpopular outside of their core supporters, and for good reason too.

[Ferguson97]

Emmanuel Macron (France) -38 net (28 vs 66)

Context is important, the French always hate their leaders. This is the equivalent of an 80% approval rating in the United States.

[SInNYC]

I mostly agree with that, but there's still no inherent need for people in places like Hungary or Israel (or come to that, the "pro-Trump" half of the US) to swallow obviously dishonest demagogic bilge as easily as they do. To an extent, you could say the same about many of those in my country who just totally wanted to "believe" in Brexit and BoJo. We badly need a revival of critical thinking, inter alia.

Welcome to the age of social "media" and the age of AI. These amplify existing beliefs, while critical thinnking is all about questioning existing beliefs.

[PSOL]

Gee, let’s look at the data