The United States and the Late Empire Syndrome: Towards Political Decay?

Since its independence in 1776, the United States (US) has cultivated a political culture deeply rooted in the principle of "anti-monarchy." The establishment of institutions such as Congress and the Supreme Court was designed to ensure a system of checks and balances that would prevent the rise of authoritarian leadership. The historical context is clear—the US was founded through a struggle against British monarchical rule, with monarchy often associated with tyranny and oppression.

The first US President, George Washington, rejected the suggestion of becoming a lifelong leader, despite his close associate, Alexander Hamilton, proposing a model resembling a king without a crown. By setting a precedent of serving only two terms, Washington reinforced a tradition that was respected for more than a century. However, Franklin D. Roosevelt broke this norm by serving four terms before Congress ultimately passed the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution, limiting the presidency to two terms.

Today, with the re-emergence of former President Donald Trump in the political arena, debates over the potential alteration of this system have resurfaced. Although the Constitution explicitly limits presidential terms, Trump and his allies appear increasingly aggressive in challenging national institutions. With significant influence over Congress and the Supreme Court, the possibility of changes driven by political will is not entirely implausible.

This dynamic evokes a phenomenon frequently discussed in political history—the Late Empire Syndrome. Several historians and political theorists have drawn parallels between the current state of the US and the final phase of the Roman Republic. Like the US, Rome also practiced a republican system designed to constrain individual power. However, due to political decay and growing public dissatisfaction with a corrupt elite, a populist leader—Julius Caesar—emerged, ultimately triggering radical change by dismantling the republic and establishing an empire.

Although Trump is not a military leader like Caesar, he plays a role in fueling a populist movement that challenges the status quo. He has become the voice of those who no longer trust moderate politics and the system of checks and balances dominated by an educated elite. This phenomenon highlights a growing public preference for leaders who are outspoken, willing to defy existing systems, and more relatable—an enduring pattern in the decline of republics throughout history.

The question remains: what will become of the US in the coming decades? The fall of a superpower does not happen abruptly; rather, it is a process that unfolds through various stages of internal and external instability. If this decay continues, the rise of an "American Caesar" cannot be ruled out.

While some view the potential decline of the US as a positive development, particularly those who perceive the country as an aggressive global hegemon, it is crucial to recognize that in international politics, a power vacuum never lasts. If the US collapses, new powers will rise, and the global implications could be far more complex.

Is the US experiencing the final phase of its republic, or can its democratic institutions endure? Only time will tell. However, one certainty remains—history does not repeat itself in exactly the same way, but similar patterns frequently emerge in the cycles of civilization.