Democracy’s Dead, So Now What? Post-Trump America, the Palestinian Genocide, and a Crisis of Credibility

The Death of Democracy

For decades, Western nations have portrayed themselves as champions of democracy, human rights, and a “rules-based international order.” In recent years, however, that moral authority has been sharply called into question by events on both sides of the Atlantic.

The tumultuous legacy of Donald Trump’s presidency in the United States – capped by unprecedented domestic turmoil – and the UK’s tacit support for what many describe as a genocide against Palestinians have become trigger points in a growing crisis of credibility for the West.

Allies and observers around the world now openly accuse Western powers of applying their liberal principles selectively, exposing a glaring gap between lofty ideals and concrete actions. The result is a profound challenge to the West’s global standing: if Western governments cannot uphold the values they preach, why should others heed their leadership?

Check here to read more of my articles on Social Justice. It’s your patriotic duty…

Post-Trump America: A House Divided and Diminished

The presidency of Donald Trump (2017–2021) marked a watershed for American democracy and global influence. Domestically, Trump’s tenure inflamed polarization and tested the resilience of U.S. institutions, culminating in the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection that shocked the world.

Internationally, the Trump administration’s “America First” stance saw the U.S. retreat from multilateral commitments and traditional alliances – withdrawing from the Paris climate accord and even the World Health Organization – moves that “portend a permanent shift in the landscape” of global governance.

Longtime allies were alarmed as Washington seemed to abandon its post-WWII role as guarantor of international norms. By 2020, global confidence in U.S. leadership had plummeted to historic lows: a Pew survey found a median of only 17% had confidence in Trump to do the right thing in world affairs.

The election of Joe Biden in 2020 did bring a swift diplomatic course correction. Biden rejoined the climate pact and WHO, and worldwide approval of U.S. leadership rebounded sharply – confidence in the U.S. president shot up to 75% under Biden, and favourable views of America doubled in many allied countries compared to 2020.

Yet the damage to America’s image was only partly repaired. Even among friendly nations, faith in the health of U.S. democracy has grown lukewarm. In 2021, a median of just 17% across advanced economies said American democracy is a good model for other countries, while 57% said it “used to be” a good example but “has not been in recent years”. Majorities in countries like Canada, Australia, and Western Europe express scepticism that the U.S. political system is functioning well – in most places fewer than one-in-ten observers would say it works “very well”.

The spectacle of a disputed election and a sitting president’s refusal to accept defeat undermined the narrative of the U.S. as a stable democratic beacon. And ongoing threats of a comeback by Trumpist populism (including Trump’s return to power in 2025) fuel uncertainty abroad about America’s future course. As one analyst noted, global scepticism toward U.S. commitment to a rules-based order – and charges of hypocrisy – are not new; the recent Gaza war is merely the latest example in a long erosion of trust.

In short, post-Trump America remains a house divided, and that division has tarnished the United States’ soft power. The traditional appeals to democratic ideals ring less convincing when “few believe American democracy, at least in its current state, serves as a good model for other nations”. This decline in moral authority creates a vacuum that rivals and critics are eager to exploit.

Western Double Standards and the Charge of Hypocrisy

While the U.S. has been grappling with its democratic backsliding, Western Europe has faced its own crisis of values, especially in foreign policy. Nothing illustrates this better than the stark double standards displayed in the West’s responses to Ukraine versus Palestine.

 Western governments have vigorously condemned Russia’s illegal invasion and occupation of Ukraine, rallying support for Kyiv as a fellow democracy under attack. Yet many of these same governments staunchly back Israel – even as Israel has militarily occupied Palestinian territories for decades and laid siege to Gaza, actions widely deemed illegal under international law. The contrast has been noted with bitter irony across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

From the perspective of the Global South, “the West condemning an illegal occupation in Ukraine while standing staunchly behind Israel” as it occupies Palestinian land is the clearest evidence of a politicised selectivity in applying principles. Western leaders’ frequent invocation of a “rules-based international order” starts to sound hollow when many developing countries see the West applying international rules and norms only when convenient – upholding them against geopolitical foes, but ignoring them when committed by allies or by the West itself.

This perceived hypocrisy has severely undermined Western credibility. Accusations of double standards have come hard and fast from governments and civil societies across the Global South. They point out how European and American leaders who insist on international law and human rights are quick to overlook those same norms when Israel bombs civilians in Gaza or Saudi Arabia strikes Yemen. As Shada Islam observes, the European Union’s failure to hold Israel accountable for violations of humanitarian law in Gaza has “blown a gaping hole” in its claims to be a values-based defender of democracy and human rights.

During the 2023 Gaza war, for example, EU officials hesitated even to call for a ceasefire despite thousands of Palestinian civilian deaths, in stark contrast to their swift and unequivocal response on Ukraine. “Rarely will anyone soon in the global south listen when western politicians insist on international law,” one Middle Eastern analyst remarked, after seeing the West’s permissiveness toward Israel’s onslaught. This sentiment is echoed by diplomats: Western rhetoric about a “rules-based order” is increasingly viewed as a cynical tool, not a principled stance, given how selectively those rules are enforced.

Western leaders themselves have at times fed this narrative. In October 2023, U.S. President Biden gave a televised address linking the conflicts in Ukraine and Israel, casting both as battles of democracy against ruthless aggression. The intention was to firm up domestic support for aid to both allies. But many in the Global South found the comparison tone-deaf – in their view, Ukrainians and Palestinians share far more in common as peoples facing occupation, whereas Israel is seen as the occupier.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made a similar misstep; she implicitly equated Israel’s actions in Gaza with Ukraine’s self-defence, even as Israeli forces were cutting off water and electricity to millions in Gaza. It did not go unnoticed that just a year prior von der Leyen had condemned such tactics (attacking civilian infrastructure, besieging civilians) as “acts of pure terror” when Russia did them in Ukraine. Her words were replayed around the world as proof of Western hypocrisy, with critics charging that “there is one rule for the EU’s allies and another rule for everyone else.” The damage to Western moral authority was immediate: influential countries like Brazil, India, South Africa and others grew more vocal in their scepticism of Western positions, often adopting a neutral or contrary stance in international forums as these crises played out.

At the popular level too, Western double standards have spurred anger and activism. Mass protests swept through Western capitals during the Gaza war, with citizens accusing their own governments of complicity. In Brussels, for instance, over 75,000 demonstrators marched in June 2025 – dressed in red to symbolize a “red line” – condemning “the inaction and hypocrisy” of European leaders and demanding an arms embargo on Israel. “Stop being so hypocritical and stand on the right side of history,” one protest organizer implored European politicians.

Such scenes highlight a profound disconnect between Western publics and their elites: many ordinary citizens do hold universal values and are disturbed when their governments abandon those values for realpolitik. The overall message, from both inside and outside the West, is clear: Western nations can no longer credibly lecture the world about democracy and human rights while practicing a blatant double standard. The gap between principle and practice has grown too wide to ignore, and it is eroding the West’s soft power—the very asset that once underpinned its global leadership.

The Palestinian Genocide and UK Complicity: A Moral Crisis

No issue has crystallized Western hypocrisy more painfully than the plight of Palestine. During Israel’s 2023–2025 military campaign in Gaza – which prominent international experts, including a UN special rapporteur and multiple human rights organizations, have characterized as a genocide – the United States and most European governments not only failed to stop the carnage but often actively shielded Israel from consequences.

Perhaps the most illustrative case is the United Kingdom. The UK government, despite its liberal democratic ethos, provided steadfast diplomatic cover and continued the flow of weapons to Israel throughout the Gaza offensive, even as the official death toll of Palestinian civilians climbed into the tens of thousands. This policy has drawn fierce criticism from legal scholars and even British officials who warn that Britain is flirting with grave illegality.

Martin Shaw – a leading genocide studies scholar – cautioned that the UK risks breaching its obligations under the Genocide Convention by abetting Israel’s actions in Gaza. He noted that given the International Court of Justice’s finding of a “plausible risk” of genocide in Gaza, Britain should cease all arms sales and military support to Israel and use its UN Security Council seat to end the assault – otherwise London and its leaders “will be liable for complicity in genocide”.

Such warnings have so far gone unheeded. Instead, evidence has emerged of the UK doubling down on military trade with Israel during the war. In late 2023, under public pressure, Britain announced a temporary suspension of some export licenses for arms that might be used in Gaza. But this was largely symbolic. In a subsequent court challenge, UK government lawyers argued that Britain’s role in producing fighter jet components for Israel “takes precedence” over any duty to halt genocide, effectively claiming commercial obligations outrank preventing mass atrocities.

The bottom line was stark: economic and strategic interests first, human lives second.

Indeed, in the three months after its token suspension, the UK quietly approved an astonishing £127.6 million worth of new military exports to Israel – more than the total UK arms sales to Israel in the previous four years (2020–2023). As the campaign group CAAT and media like Red Pepper uncovered these figures, they concluded that Britain “remains an active partner in Israel’s genocide” as long as the arms pipeline remains open. The British government’s message to Israel has been one of implicit impunity: no matter how egregious the bombing of hospitals, schools, and refugee camps, the flow of weapons and trade will continue unabated.

This permissive stance is not an aberration but part of a broader historical pattern. “The reality is that, tragically, the UK establishment’s complicity in genocide is nothing new,” journalist Mark Curtis observes. Since the post-colonial era, British governments of both major parties have repeatedly armed or supported regimes committing mass atrocities – from Nigeria’s brutal Biafra war in the 1960s to Indonesia’s genocidal invasion of East Timor in the 1970s, from Saddam Hussein’s chemical extermination of Kurds in the 1980s to the Rwandan genocide in 1994. In each case, cold strategic calculus trumped moral responsibility.

Declassified files show, for example, that during the Biafra famine, UK ministers secretly shipped weapons to the Nigerian military as millions starved, prioritizing oil interests with Shell/BP over humanitarian concern. In the 1980s, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s government, while verbally condemning Saddam’s gassing of Kurdish civilians, concurrently encouraged British firms to pursue lucrative arms deals with Iraq – seeing “considerable commercial advantages” even in the wake of genocidal attacks. Time and again, lofty principles were “espoused only for the cameras,” while behind closed doors Whitehall’s priorities were oil, trade, and geopolitical influence.

Crucially, no British official has ever been held legally accountable for aiding these atrocities, a fact that emboldens continued impunity. The UK’s unwritten constitution grants ministers broad Crown immunity for acts of state, insulating them from prosecution for decisions made in office. This lack of accountability, at home or abroad, means there is little to deter current leaders from repeating past sins.

In the case of Israel-Palestine, Britain’s strategic tilt is obvious. Successive UK governments see Israel as a valuable defence and technology partner – and Palestinians, in the blunt calculus of power politics, as “unpeople”. As Curtis writes, supporting Palestinian rights offers little material gain for British planners, whereas aligning with Israel grants access to defence markets and intel cooperation. Thus, moral scruples are conveniently set aside. London’s stance during the Gaza onslaught illustrates this realpolitik plainly: British officials refused to even label the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as a “genocide”, with the Foreign Secretary (David Lammy) going so far as to deny that term in Parliament.

Only after months of carnage and public outcry did the UK slightly recalibrate – pausing a trade promotion deal and sanctioning a few Israeli settler leaders. But critics immediately noted that these measures were largely cosmetic, “smokescreens” that avoided targeting the Israeli state or its ability to continue the war. Britain pointedly did not join calls for a ceasefire or threaten any suspension of its overarching military and economic support for Israel. This approach, mirrored by other Western powers, effectively gave Israel a green light to press on.

Israeli leaders themselves remarked on this. Throughout the campaign, Israeli officials exuded confidence that they would “face no consequences for even the most egregious war crimes,” having “pushed boundaries then blown them to smithereens” with Western acquiescence. Tragically, this assessment proved accurate. By aligning itself so completely with Israel’s wartime agenda, the UK (and the West writ large) failed a basic test of principle – and alienated millions around the world who expected better.

Global Consequences: Eroding Trust and a Shifting World Order

The fallout from these Western missteps is global and far-reaching. The glaring gap between Western rhetoric and Western behaviour has fuelled cynicism across the international community, weakening the very norms the West once established. Non-Western powers now have an easier time rallying support for alternative visions of world order, as they point to Western hypocrisy to undermine the appeal of liberal democracy.

For instance, when Western diplomats appeal to “universal values” at the United Nations, adversaries retort by citing Gaza, Iraq, or other episodes as evidence that Western powers apply one standard to themselves and their friends, and another to the rest. This criticism resonates in many quarters. In U.N. debates, accusations of double standards – once taboo – are now frequently levelled back at Western countries, reflecting a loss of moral high ground.

The inability (or unwillingness) of Western leaders to hold Israel accountable despite clear breaches of humanitarian law has particularly galvanized the Global South. Dozens of countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America – including key U.S. partners like India, South Africa, Brazil and others – have edged closer to positions of neutrality or even outright dissent regarding Western initiatives. They reason that if the West won’t enforce international law in Palestine, why should others automatically line up behind Western-led campaigns on issues like Ukraine?

A case in point is Ukraine itself. Western leaders have repeatedly urged the rest of the world to support Ukraine against Russian aggression, framing it as a defence of the rules-based order. But their credibility is now undermined by the Gaza double standard. As Foreign Policy analyst Oliver Stuenkel observes, many diplomats – both Western and non-Western – admit that Western selectivity in upholding rules “will harm efforts to bring non-Western countries into Ukraine’s corner.” Countries hesitant to sanction Russia can point to Western inaction on Israel as justification for their scepticism.

Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, for example, has been openly critical of what he perceives as Western hypocrisy. He condemned Russia’s war yet simultaneously questioned Western sanctions and even suggested Ukraine cede territory – positions that frustrated Washington. When challenged, Lula fired back by highlighting the West’s selective application of justice, noting the International Criminal Court is undermined when great powers (like the U.S.) refuse its jurisdiction and when clear crimes by allies go unpunished.

Brazil’s stance during the Gaza war was also telling: while decrying Hamas’s terror attack, Brazilian officials just as strongly decried “the insanity” of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza and pushed for a humanitarian ceasefire. Brazil even led a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for pauses in the fighting – which the U.S. vetoed. This illustrated in real time how Western obstruction to rein in an ally’s war undermined cooperation on broader security issues. In the words of one Brazilian protester addressing Western leaders, “you have a people who want one thing, and you don’t listen… It’s not okay anymore.”

Beyond diplomatic rifts, Western inconsistency has cost it significant “soft power” capital – the influence earned through trust, example, and moral suasion. European policymakers have long banked on their image as principled actors to win hearts and minds abroad. Now that reservoir of goodwill is drying up. The European Council on Foreign Relations warns that Europe’s handling of Gaza “is tearing through its huge reserves of soft power” in Arab and African countries. Pro-democracy activists and youth leaders in those regions, who once looked to Western Europe for solidarity, increasingly view it as cynical or indifferent when convenient.

This loss of credibility makes it harder for the West to champion causes like human rights, since appeals to universal principles are easily dismissed as self-serving. As one poll showed, 75% of respondents across 16 Arab nations rated the stances of key Western countries on Gaza as “bad” or “very bad”. In online discourse too, Western hypocrisy has become a punchline – viral memes and songs in the Middle East mock Western leaders for their double standards. Such perception shifts are not trivial; they diminish Western influence in everything from trade negotiations to alliance-building. When a crisis erupts (be it a war, a pandemic, or climate emergency), the willingness of other nations to cooperate with Western initiatives may be lower because mutual trust has eroded.

The credibility crisis also emboldens authoritarian powers and aspiring hegemons. Leaders in Beijing and Moscow, often on the defensive over their own human rights records, are gleefully exploiting Western hypocrisies to deflect criticism. Chinese state media, for instance, has highlighted the West’s tolerance of Palestinian suffering to counter U.S. condemnations of China’s policies in Xinjiang or Hong Kong. Russian officials likewise draw parallels between Russian actions in Ukraine and U.S. actions in Iraq or NATO’s in Libya, arguing that Western lectures are disingenuous. This propaganda finds a more receptive audience now that Western nations have themselves provided vivid recent examples of do-as-we-say, not-as-we-do.

Moreover, the weakening of Western moral leadership opens space for new coalitions. We see emerging alignments like the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization touting principles of non-interference and multipolarity – essentially asking countries to choose a world order not dominated by Western norms. If Western states are seen as acting no more nobly than anyone else, their claim to set the rules is fundamentally undermined.

Finally, the decline of Western credibility poses a challenge to the future of the international institutions and norms built after 1945. The United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, the International Criminal Court – these pillars of global order were championed in large part by Western democracies. But when those same states flout the spirit of these institutions (for example, using veto power to shield an ally from accountability, or selectively ignoring war crimes), it encourages a broader breakdown in compliance.

Already, we observe that other states feel freer to ignore UN resolutions or court rulings that they dislike, citing Western examples as justification. If the notion spreads that might makes right and that “universal” rules are just tools of Western convenience, then the world edges closer to Hobbesian transactionalism. In such a scenario, cooperation on global challenges – from climate change to non-proliferation – becomes vastly more difficult. A Western world order that does not live by its own rules cannot expect others to uphold them, and the likely result is a fragmented international system where power, not principle, reigns supreme.

Conclusion: Bridging the Gap Between Ideals and Actions

The West today stands at a crossroads. The post-Cold War unipolar moment has faded, and with it the automatic deference once enjoyed by the U.S. and its European allies. Regaining global trust will require Western nations to honestly confront their own inconsistencies and realign their policies with their professed values. This is no easy task, but it is an urgent one if the Western project of liberal internationalism is to endure in any credible form.

An analytical look at recent history suggests several steps the West could take to begin repairing its credibility:

• Reinvigorate Democracy at Home: Western governments must shore up the integrity of their own democratic institutions and social cohesion. A house divided against itself cannot lead others. Reducing polarization, defending the rule of law, and ensuring peaceful transfers of power (so that events like the U.S. Capitol riot never recur) are crucial. In a 2021 survey, only 17% of allied publics saw American democracy as a good model today, but a clear majority said it could be – implying that if the U.S. fixes its flaws, much goodwill could be restored. The same goes for Europe: addressing democratic backsliding within EU member states and living up to principles (like media freedom and minority rights) will strengthen Western credibility abroad.
• Apply International Law Consistently: The West should end the double standards in its foreign policy, even when inconvenient. This means holding all violators of human rights and international law accountable – not only adversaries but also friends and even itself. Selective outrage undermines the very concept of a rules-based order. If the U.S. and Europe truly believe in universal principles, they must be willing, for example, to condition military aid or impose sanctions on strategic partners who commit atrocities (be it Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or others), just as they do on rival states. Consistency would go a long way toward blunting the charge of hypocrisy. Western leaders might take inspiration from smaller states like Ireland or Belgium that, at times, have broken ranks to criticize Israel’s actions or support international legal proceedings on Palestine. Such courage in aligning actions with values needs to become the norm, not the exception.
• Strengthen Multilateral Institutions – No Exceptions: To reclaim moral leadership, Western powers should lead by example in empowering international institutions and respecting their decisions. That could mean the U.S. finally ratifying the core treaties it often asks others to honour (such as joining the ICC, or the Convention on the Rights of the Child, etc.), and refraining from using vetoes to shield allies from accountability. It also means investing in UN reform to give the Global South a greater voice, acknowledging the justified frustrations of developing nations. When Western countries call on institutions like the UN or World Court to address crises (e.g. Russian aggression), their appeals will carry more weight if those same countries haven’t been seen to undermine those bodies in other cases. In short, Western commitment to a fair international system must be visibly impartial – rooted in principles rather than geopolitics.

Ultimately, bridging the gap between Western ideals and actions is not just a moral imperative but a strategic one. The influence of the West in a “post-Western” global landscape will depend less on hard power and more on the power of example and persuasion. As things stand, that power has ebbed: friends and foes alike perceive Western nations as talking the talk but not walking the walk.

The good news is that credibility, once lost, can be regained – but only through consistent, concrete changes in behaviour. Western leaders will need to demonstrate, repeatedly and transparently, that they mean what they say about democracy and human rights, even when it costs them in the short term. This could mean accepting uncomfortable truths: acknowledging past mistakes (from colonial-era atrocities to Iraq to Palestine) and making amends where possible, while also checking cynical realpolitik at the door when fundamental norms are at stake.

Such a reorientation will not happen overnight. It may, in fact, face domestic political resistance – as segments of Western societies themselves have grown sceptical of globalist ideals or are swayed by nationalist narratives. Yet leadership, by definition, means taking the first step. If Western democracies wish to retain their leadership role in guiding a cooperative, rules-bound international order, they must hold themselves to the same standards they expect of others. Restoring that symmetry between principle and practice is the key to resolving the current crisis of credibility. The West’s moral authority, once rebuilt, could again become a force for progress – but without that rebuilding, the drift toward a fragmented and mistrustful world will only accelerate.

In the final analysis, the Western alliance’s greatest strength has never been its wealth or weaponry, but the power of its ideals. To wield that power effectively in the 21st century, the West must live up to those ideals consistently – at home, in allies’ capitals, and on every world stage. Only through such a renewal can Western leadership hope to turn the tide and convince a sceptical global public that it is still on the right side of history.

References

• BBC News. (2025, June 9). Thousands march in Brussels for Gaza ceasefire. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy220vr3n3do
• BBC News. (2025, March 20). Gaza genocide: What is the ICJ case against Israel? Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67996149
• Curtis, M. (2025, January 16). The UK’s role in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Declassified UK. Retrieved from https://declassifieduk.org/the-uks-role-in-israels-genocide-in-gaza
• Freedom House. (2024). Freedom in the World 2024. Washington, DC: Freedom House. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2024
• International Court of Justice. (2024). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 26 January 2024. Retrieved from https://www.icj-cij.org
• Islam, S. (2023, November 27). Europe is losing the global South over Gaza. European Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from https://ecfr.eu/article/europe-is-losing-the-global-south-over-gaza
• Lammy, D. (2024, July 25). UK Foreign Secretary comments on the ICJ ruling on Gaza. UK Parliament Hansard. Retrieved from https://hansard.parliament.uk
• Pew Research Center. (2021, June 10). America’s image abroad rebounds with transition from Trump to Biden. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/06/10/americas-image-abroad-rebounds-with-transition-from-trump-to-biden
• Shaw, M. (2024, February 9). UK risks complicity in Israel’s Gaza genocide. Declassified UK. Retrieved from https://declassifieduk.org/uk-risks-complicity-in-israels-gaza-genocide
• Stuenkel, O. (2023, October 20). How the West lost the Global South. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/10/20/gaza-war-ukraine-global-south-hypocrisy
• von der Leyen, U. (2022, October 18). Remarks on the war in Ukraine and international humanitarian law. European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu

Thank You for Reading!

I hope you enjoyed this post and found it insightful. If you did, feel free to subscribe to receive updates about future posts via email, leave a comment below, or share it with your friends and followers. Your feedback and engagement mean a lot to me, and it helps keep this community growing.

If you’re interested in diving deeper into topics like this, don’t forget to check out the Donc Voila Quoi Podcast, where I discuss these ideas in more detail. You can also follow me on Pinterest @doncvoilaquoi and Instagram @jessielouisevernon, though my accounts have been shut down before (like my old @doncvoilaquoi on Instagram), so keep an eye out for updates.