🔗 Share this article

If the current year was already shaping up to be the worst year of the century regarding the international system established after WWII, the past week proved to be its most destructive week yet. The Israeli government deepened its disregard for international conventions after deploying a squadron of warplanes toward the Gulf state, striking a Hamas delegation engaged in peace negotiations in Doha. The last meaningful forum for diplomatic negotiation appears to have vanished completely.

No fewer than a group of unmanned aerial vehicles from Russia violated Poland’s airspace. For the first time, allied military aircraft were deployed to counter hostile objects within the borders of a member nation. Whether the incursion was a technical mishap or deliberate probing by Moscow, as western experts believe, this was “the closest we have been to outright war since the second world war,” Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, stated.

And then, Charlie Kirk, an outspoken right-wing figure and close Donald Trump ally, was shot dead during a speech to university attendees and Maga supporters at a Utah university. Without evidence regarding the perpetrator or intentions, the former president quickly accused “those on the radical left,” claiming they for using language “directly responsible to acts of terror that we’re seeing in our country now.”

When questioned about the divided nation might reconcile after Kirk’s assassination, Trump said he was indifferent”. The reasoning provided proved alarming: Right-wing extremists are radical because they oppose criminal activity … The radicals on the left are the problem – and they are vicious and horrible and strategically clever.” This is how polarisation transforms into group mentality. Thus cycles of hostility accelerates toward irreversible conflict.

In reality, over 75% of all extremist-related killings in the US in the past decade have come from rightwing extremists, while left-wing radicals responsible for only a fraction of these incidents. The former president denounced political violence in general the following day – but did not acknowledge a series of recent assaults targeting liberal figures, including several killings. To him, the issue remains perpetually others, and not the “wonderful Americans” who make up his core followers.

The political and cultural aftershocks of Kirk’s death will no doubt unfold over the next month, but the biggest danger in a polarised climate is that the shooting transforms into a Reichstag fire of our age. The deliberate burning on 27 February 1933 marked Germany’s pivot from fragile democracy toward autocratic rule. The Nazi leader, freshly installed as chancellor, capitalized on the incident to eliminate the freedoms under previous governance – free speech, media independence, association, assembly.

“Anyone who stands in our way shall be eliminated,” he declared, surveying the arsoned building. Thousands of communists found themselves imprisoned, including all 81 Communist deputies in parliament. Once opposition was suppressed, the ruling party quickly cemented control.

Within modern America, Kirk’s death has captivated the nation, energizing political bases and Trump’s supporters, a fact he recognizes. An extremist figure, a controversial commentator, demanded detainment of all opposing lawmakers, explicitly labeling the murder as the movement’s turning point.

The reality is, here is the event that could rescue a struggling administration plagued with a sharp drop in job numbers, a weakening dollar, and real estate turmoil. The former president grieved as though he were family, yet his language implied it might become focused equally on targeting opponents rather than justice. Right after the assassination, he vowed to go after “each and every one involved directly or indirectly in this tragedy … including the organisations providing backing.” He singled out a billionaire philanthropist, the American-Hungarian philanthropist and political contributor. He is dangerous,” Trump told NBC News, he deserves imprisonment.”

The reasons for Kirk’s killing remains unclear. Ideological leanings belonging to the attacker, a young individual, appear as muddled similar to Thomas Matthew Crooks, a young man who attempted to assassinate the former president in Pennsylvania. Does this represent left-wing extremism targeting right-wing figures – or is it the strange, chaotic subculture from internet forums spilling into the real world? Phrases etched on to the bullet casings in Utah read less like a political statement and more like a mix of puerile memes and virtual world allusions.

Yet concerns arise that the repression of dissenting scholars, lawyers, journalists, civil servants, armed forces members, and judges in the US will intensify. Already, reactions on social media have led to multiple instances of sackings and US state department officials have warned non-citizens against endorsing or joking about Kirk’s assassination, instructing consulates to take “appropriate action” against any foreigners engaging in such behavior.

The former president has often prospered on chaos and disorder. Where real crises do not exist, he invents scenarios – like nonexistent crime waves in major cities, the capital and Chicago. Fake chaos advances his ambitions. Now he has been handed an ideal opportunity. It is understandable he shows no concern if the nation comes together.

This incident offers an ideal justification to strengthen control, muzzling opposition, and concentrating power – enabling future leaders may inherit total governmental power, regardless of charisma, qualifications or mandate. After all, any autocratic system has to be built first; once entrenched, it is simpler to maintain.

Democratic systems and international frameworks have flaws, yet they provided peace, advancement and economic growth – the very opposite of dictatorial rule. Implying that America, the architect of the postwar order, could soon slide into complete dictatorship, with rulers adopting historical extremist mindsets, may seem far-fetched.

However, alternatively, it is quite plausible. Authoritarian rule remained recent history during the upbringing of individuals within contemporary Western nations were growing up. From Belgium to Bulgaria, numerous households retain memories of fatalities, devastation, hatred and destitution that authoritarianism leaves behind. To safeguard their near future, they should examine historical lessons.