Political scientist and former People’s Progressive Party (PPP) minister Dr. Henry Jeffrey has cautioned against what he termed “bidding autocratic revivals,” arguing that recent political developments in the United States and elsewhere signal mounting pressure on liberal democratic systems.
In an article titled ‘Bidding autocratic revivals’, Dr. Jeffrey said President Donald Trump’s disparaging characterisation of the Obamas did not surprise him, pointing to two developments in 2016 that, in his view, revealed Trump’s political orientation.
“By January of that year, he had come to grasp the importance of social structures, i.e. the durable and resilient nature of his ethnic support base and felt compelled to share his observation with us. ‘I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?’ Secondly, later in the year, he patented the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement,” Jeffrey wrote.
According to Jeffrey, Trump’s remarks suggested a belief that the institutional foundations underpinning liberal democracy in the United States were “at the very least receding.” He drew parallels with Guyana’s political experience, contending that insufficient unified public opinion has historically undermined accountability. As one example, he referenced the period during which Cheddi Jagan was kept from government for three decades.
Jeffrey grounded his argument in historical analysis, citing the 1951 British Waddington Report, which stated that “race is a patent difference and is a powerful slogan ready to the hand of unscrupulous men who can use it as a steppingstone to political power.” He also referenced the 1954 Robertson Report, which claimed, “We do not altogether [believe that] a comprehensive loyalty to British Guiana can be stimulated among peoples of such diverse origins.”
He further invoked 19th-century political philosopher John Stuart Mill, quoting from Of nationality as connected with Representative Government: “Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow feeling (the essence of nationhood) … the united public opinion necessary to the working of a representative government cannot exist. The influences which form opinions and decide political acts are different in the different sections of the country. An altogether different set of leaders have the confidence of one part of the country and of another.”
While noting that inclusive political institutional arrangements helped mitigate such tensions in the mid-20th century, Jeffrey argued that contemporary migration patterns and demographic shifts have revived the political use of identity divisions.
He cited a 2007 paper by Scott Orr presented at the American Political Science Association, which suggested that “a minority group that votes as a bloc is something of a curiosity when it makes up 1% of the population of a state but could become an existential threat to democracy when, [as in Guyana] it makes up about 40%” and is not constitutionally accommodated within state management.
Turning to the United States, Jeffrey pointed to demographic changes, quoting data indicating that while White Americans remain the majority, “their share has been declining steadily,” with significant implications for electoral politics and governance.
He also referenced polling data showing that in 2024, MAGA was supported by 70% of self-identified Republicans and 40% of the voting population. However, he noted that a February 2025 poll placed those figures at 52% and 36%, respectively, suggesting some fluctuation in support.
Jeffrey cited commentary identifying key MAGA-era ideologies as “white cultural and political dominance, nativist immigration positions, conspiracist grievance politics, and a fusion with radical legal and religious narratives, etc.” He added that some analysts argue MAGA rhetoric and symbolism echo historical white supremacist movements and that by 2020 the movement had become “a culture war machine,” casting universities, media and science as “enemies of the people.”
He further referenced survey findings stating: “At the dawn of a second Trump administration, the threat white Christian nationalism poses to the promise of multiracial, multifaith democracy are plainer than ever … This survey illustrates how this dangerous political theology is driving support for Donald Trump and the MAGA movement and how thoroughly it has established itself as an ideological keystone in both the Republican Party and American evangelical churches.”
Jeffrey argued that across the developed world, politicians advancing racist or nativist agendas have increasingly emphasised national identity, border security, stricter immigration controls and cultural assimilation policies. In Guyana, he said, “anti-democratic voices have got to a stage where they are questioning the entire liberal democratic order,” while questioning what viable alternative exists for managing a free society.
Despite his concerns, Jeffrey maintained that the United States is unlikely to see the collapse of its liberal democratic state.
“Firstly, it is difficult to perceive that those who have been socialised at such a level of political freedom for nearly 250 years will allow its destruction with nothing better in sight,” he wrote.
He added that unlike Guyana, where certain democratic safeguards are “essentially theoretical,” the United States has entrenched institutional pillars — including the rule of law, separation of powers, substantial federalism, an independent judiciary and various forms of non-majoritarian representation — which provide inclusivity and checks and balances.
Finally, Jeffrey contended that MAGA’s core support is “not as substantial or stable” as sometimes portrayed and that the United States retains “a substantial united public opinion with which to hold governments accountable,” suggesting that over centuries Americans have been instilled with “the necessity of keeping its powder dry in the event of any budding autocratic revival.”
