Illusions of Great Leaders Threaten Hard-Won Individual Freedoms

By Mika Horelli, BRUSSELS

Former Finnish Prime Minister Harri Holkeri (1937–2011) served as President of the United Nations General Assembly from 2000 to 2001. As he was concluding his term, he granted me a farewell interview in early September 2001 in New York. Holkeri remarked that when one has spent almost their entire life in Western societies built on the idea of individual freedom, it is easy to become blind to the fact that only a minority of the world’s population actually lives in democracies.

The situation has not improved over the past quarter-century; rather, it has worsened. According to last year’s Democracy Index by The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), approximately 45% of the global population lives under some form of democracy, but only 8% experience full democracy.

I have lived in Finland, Denmark, the United States, and Belgium, but never in an autocracy. That is why even short visits to such places open my eyes every time to an entirely different reality.

Western societies are founded on individual rights and freedoms. The role of the government is to protect these rights and provide a framework in which people can fulfill themselves. Autocratic systems, such as Putin’s Russia or Xi’s China, operate on the opposite principle: the leader’s power is paramount, and society exists to sustain it. These two governance models are not just different ways to run a state—they are competing worldviews that shape everything from individual liberties to foreign policy.

The Diverging Paths of Two Systems

The Western model originates from Enlightenment thinking, which arose in opposition to absolute monarchy and religious authority. Thinkers like John Locke and Montesquieu argued that legitimate governance derives its power from the people. The American and French revolutions cemented this principle into constitutional democracies where individual rights are enshrined in law.

The autocratic model, on the other hand, traces its roots to imperial traditions in which rulers held absolute power. In Russia, the tsarist system was based on the belief that authority was divinely granted and concentrated in a single individual. The Soviet Union replaced divine justification with ideological supremacy, but the core idea remained: the state—and ultimately its leader—was the source of all rights. In China, a similar trajectory is visible, as imperial dynasties gave way to Communist Party rule without altering the centralized power structure.

The Role of Society: Empowerment or Subjugation?

In a democracy, the government is accountable to its people, who have the right to question, challenge, and ultimately replace their leaders. Power is not owned but is a temporary mandate granted by the people. Laws protect freedoms rather than restrict them, and even the most influential officials are subject to them.

In an autocracy, power belongs personally to the leader and is not constrained by law. Society is not a space for self-expression but a tool for control. The media serves as a state mouthpiece, education functions as an instrument of indoctrination, and opposition is either crushed, exiled, or absorbed into the system. The ultimate goal is not national well-being but the uninterrupted continuation of the leader’s authority.

A Worldview That Always Demands More

Putin’s Russia is an extreme example of this mindset. In this worldview, nothing is ever enough. There is always more land to conquer, more wealth to accumulate, more external and internal enemies to eliminate. The war in Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 are all part of the same principle: power must constantly expand. Putin’s regime does not operate within fixed borders or clear objectives—it thrives in perpetual conflict because, without an external enemy, internal contradictions would become too dangerous.

Worryingly, this mindset can also be seen in Donald Trump’s behavior. His demands to acquire Greenland, Panama, or even parts of Canada—regardless of what their inhabitants think—fit this picture perfectly. Like Putin, he views power as personal property. Democratic institutions, checks and balances, and even the will of voters are obstacles to be overcome rather than principles to be upheld. His refusal to accept the 2020 election results, his attempts to undermine trust in democratic institutions, and his open admiration for autocrats suggest that he sees governance as transactional rather than democratic: those in power must do whatever it takes to maintain it.

However, it is essential to remember that Trump was elected within a democratic system. The Americans who took the time to vote knew what they were signing up for—or at least, one would hope so.

It is worth asking why voters in democratic countries increasingly choose leaders who mock the very institutions designed to protect their rights. Donald Trump in the United States, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary are recent examples of political leaders who do not respect the rule of law but seek to consolidate power for themselves. It seems that a growing portion of people in democratic nations no longer understand what democracy is about. They vote for the centralization of power as if it would not endanger their own rights and freedoms.

Why This Battle Matters

When Western countries oppose Putin’s Russia or resist China’s growing authoritarian influence, it is not merely a geopolitical struggle—it is about the kind of world we want to live in. Do we believe in a society where individuals can make their own choices, express their opinions, and hold their leaders accountable? Or do we accept a world where individuals exist to serve the ambitions of the ruler?

History has shown that authoritarianism does not stop at its own borders. Autocrats are never satisfied with what they have; their logic demands constant expansion—whether in territory, influence, or control. If we do not defend our values now, we may soon find ourselves in a world where they no longer matter.

That is why resisting Putin and those like him is not just about defending Ukraine—it is about defending the fundamental principles that define our own societies. And as the rise of authoritarianism in the West indicates, this is not a distant battle—it will determine the future of democracy itself.