In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump was re-elected as President of the United States. Compared to the “global shock” of his first victory in 2016, this time neither Americans nor the world at large were particularly surprised. However, Trump’s two presidencies have already profoundly shaken—and will continue to disrupt and fragment—the political systems and international order of various countries. His victories signify the remarkable success of global anti-establishment forces and the growing influence of populist movements.

The term “anti-establishment” refers to a strong opposition to the existing political system, traditional politicians and bureaucratic elites, mainstream values, social order, and international structures, accompanied by a tendency and actions aimed at overturning the status quo. Populism, on the other hand, disregards conventional political norms and rules, advocating for the interests of “the people” while opposing inefficient systems and corrupt bureaucracies. It often calls for dismantling the existing system to build a new society or to return to a supposed golden age in history. By exploiting widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo, populist movements rally the public to destroy order and overthrow institutions through radical means, ultimately creating a political model where the people are given nominal reverence, but actual power rests with ambitious opportunists (sometimes referred to as “tyrants”) and oligarchs (powerful elites).

Over the past decade or more, not only in the United States but across the world, anti-establishment and populist forces have grown increasingly powerful and influential, achieving numerous victories.

In Europe, populism in the UK successfully orchestrated Brexit, while far-right political parties have risen in countries such as France and Germany. Hungary’s nationalist-populist regime under Viktor Orbán has become increasingly entrenched, and Putin’s Russia not only invaded Ukraine outright but also collaborates strategically with various right-wing populist organizations across Europe.

In Asia, populist regimes exemplified by Narendra Modi’s government in India and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s administration in Turkey—blending extreme nationalism with religious conservatism—have gained significant momentum. Domestically, these regimes wield authoritarian control, while externally, they pursue expansionist agendas, suppress dissent, and exploit the weak. Even relatively stable and developed nations like Japan and South Korea have experienced populist waves, whether quietly or more conspicuously.

In Latin America, left-wing populists, such as Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico and Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, and right-wing populists, like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Javier Milei in Argentina, dominate the political scene. While opposing one another with near-hostility, both camps share an anti-establishment stance, denounce traditional politicians, incite public sentiment, and implement unconventional economic and social policies. These policies have exacerbated economic instability and worsened public safety, creating environments of further chaos. In turn, such deteriorating conditions fuel populism, creating a vicious cycle.

This global context can be described as the “third wave of anti-establishment and populist movements.” It is termed the “third wave” because it follows two prior waves.

If we trace the history of rebellion against ruling classes, the overthrow of systems, and various populist tendencies, we can go back thousands of years with countless examples large and small. However, events that are too far in the past differ greatly from modern society and are difficult to enumerate comprehensively. Therefore, we will begin with the large-scale waves of anti-establishment populism that emerged after the Industrial Revolution and the political revolutions in Europe. Since the 20th century, there have been three major waves of anti-establishment populism.

The first wave occurred in the first half of the 20th century, with its peak in the 1930s and 1940s. Representative events include left-wing revolutions in countries like Russia and China, as well as the rise of far-right fascism represented by Nazi Germany and Japanese militarism. These revolutions, uprisings, and wars challenged the capitalist production and distribution systems established in the 18th and 19th centuries, limited democratic politics (based on property rights and restricted by class, gender, and education), and the global order established by traditional colonial empires such as Britain and France.

The revolutions, uprisings, and political movements in Russia, China, and Eastern Europe under the banner of “communism” were brutal upheavals led by the lower classes and a minority of elite revolutionaries, fueled by intensified class conflicts and hardship, that used Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideologies to overthrow systems and destroy traditions. Meanwhile, Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan, facing similar internal hardships and societal conflicts, chose instead to consolidate internally and expand externally. They engaged in aggression, colonization, and mass killings, redirecting domestic tensions outward and seizing benefits and privileged positions for their own citizens.

Both the internal conflicts resulting from the Russian and Chinese revolutions (and the subsequent external disputes involving the Soviet Union and “Red China”) and the aggression of Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan were deeply intertwined with broader international conflicts. These included irreconcilable interests between nations, imbalances in global political and economic structures, and the attempts of emerging powers to challenge the world order dominated by traditional empires like Britain and France, redraw spheres of influence, and establish a “new order.”

This wave of anti-establishment and populist movements caused unprecedented disasters for humanity, directly resulting in the deaths of over 100 million people through related wars and revolutions, with countless more suffering indirectly. However, these revolutions and wars—especially the counterattacks of the anti-fascist alliances—did reshape human society. They transformed the political, economic, and cultural structures within many countries, influenced the rise and fall of nations, and established a new international order, a global configuration, and a fresh chapter for humanity, distinct from the 19th century.

The second wave of anti-establishment and populist movements occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. It was marked by events such as the “1968 movements” in Europe and the United States (a series of student protests, civil rights movements for Black Americans and other minorities, feminist and LGBT equality campaigns, anti-Vietnam War peace movements, etc.) and China’s “Cultural Revolution.” This wave also spread to many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

This wave challenged the post-World War II domestic systems and international order. While it did not fundamentally alter the structures established after the war, it still had a profound impact on politics, culture, and societal values in many countries, shaping new ideologies and behavioral patterns. Although this wave of movements sometimes involved violence, at least in Europe and the United States, it largely unfolded through nonviolent means, resulting in fewer casualties. (China’s “Cultural Revolution,” though part of this wave, was relatively unique and independent, with its devastating destruction and killings confined to mainland China. This specificity should not lead to a blanket condemnation of other anti-establishment activities during the same period.)

More importantly, this wave of anti-establishment and anti-traditional movements, though causing great harm in places like China, had overwhelmingly positive effects in much of the rest of the world, particularly in promoting progress. It contributed to advances in class, racial, and gender equality, greater personal freedoms, decolonization, cultural flourishing, and diversity in Europe, the United States, and many other regions.

The anti-establishment and populist wave that has emerged since the 2010s—reaching its first peak from 2016 to 2018—is undoubtedly the “third wave.” Of course, from the 1980s to the early 21st century, anti-mainstream and anti-establishment populist activities also existed, but they were relatively small in scale, more fragmented, and rarely interconnected. In contrast, the system and values based on democratic politics, market economies, welfare states, universal values, globalization, and a peace-and-development-oriented international order once appeared relatively stable and promising. This was the context in which Francis Fukuyama proposed his “End of History” thesis, suggesting that the prevailing democratic systems would endure indefinitely.

Even major events like the 9/11 terrorist attacks or the rise of authoritarian China’s economic power and national strength, which deviated from the ideals of peace and democracy, only somewhat undermined the “end of history” theory. Yet, most people remained optimistic about the institutional framework and the prospect of a peaceful world. This optimism was largely because, at the time, the developed democratic nations of Europe and North America remained internally cohesive, economically strong, and firmly under the control of establishment forces. The turbulence in non-Western regions and the challenges posed by external or peripheral forces to developed democracies had limited impact.

However, with Donald Trump’s unexpected victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election as a defining moment, many countries and regions worldwide—including developed democracies in Europe and North America—witnessed internal revolts against the prevailing liberal democratic system. This revolt extended to attacks and criticisms of multiculturalism and inclusivity, women’s rights and minority rights, globalization, supranational cooperation, and universal human rights values. Using social media and the openness of liberal societies, misinformation and subversion flourished. Democratic mechanisms such as elections and referenda were weaponized to overthrow existing systems, populist opportunists gained power, and parties promoting racism, extreme nationalism, religious conservatism, and anti-intellectualism came to dominate governments.

This phenomenon, akin to a “fortress breached from within,” saw ambitious leaders leveraging populist rhetoric to incite the public. They used freedom to undermine democracy and utilized democratic processes to dismantle freedom. As a result, democratic systems entered a severe crisis. Internal conflicts intensified within the very European and North American nations once regarded as global role models for democracy. These societies became overwhelmed by their own divisions and struggles, leaving them unable to focus on broader issues. Many countries saw their traditional establishment leaders displaced by figures who eschewed political norms and lacked moral integrity. Optimism gave way to widespread concern and even despair. Clearly, Fukuyama’s “end of history” and other optimistic post-Cold War visions—predicting ever-increasing peace, democracy, and progress—are no longer reliable and are, in fact, unraveling.

The “third wave” of anti-establishment and populist movements shares significant similarities with the first two waves in terms of background, causes, and manifestations. Once again, we see societies in which a “new order” established decades earlier has ossified into an “old order.” New crises have emerged within these systems, but they remain inadequately addressed. Intensifying conflicts between different groups, mutual distrust, and widespread feelings of disillusionment or suffering have left many dissatisfied with the status quo. Amidst these conditions, ambitious leaders and destabilizing elements have seized the moment, turning societal tensions into storms that drive this latest wave of populism.

However, the three waves of anti-establishment movements also differ significantly. For example, the content and demands of the third wave of anti-establishment movements are, in some ways, a reactionary backlash against the values and social systems established by progressive movements in Europe and the U.S. following the second wave of the 1960s and 1970s. The third wave seeks to reverse these developments and restore the mainstream values and order to what they were before the second wave. For instance, the 1968 movements advocated for special protection and care for vulnerable groups such as women, children, racial minorities, and the LGBT community, as well as for the condemnation of racism and colonialism. In contrast, the third wave downplays equality, excludes vulnerable and minority groups, denies racial oppression, and trivializes the crimes of colonialism. In other words, the very “establishment” that the third wave seeks to oppose is the one partially built by the limited successes of the second wave of anti-establishment movements.

At their core, all three waves of anti-establishment and populist movements stem from sharp societal contradictions and the dissatisfaction of those who feel abandoned, marginalized, or relatively disempowered within their societies. These individuals and groups, frustrated with the current system and their loss of benefits and influence, attempt to overturn the established order and create a new system where they hold dominance. Through their rhetoric and actions, these movements have profoundly disrupted the status quo. In doing so, they have brought significant destruction—though the degree and nature of this destruction have varied between the three waves, within different streams of the same wave, and across countries.

In any era, there are societal contradictions, discontented individuals, and groups who find themselves outside the “system.” This ensures that anti-establishment forces are always present, often manifesting through practices tinged with populist rhetoric. The three major waves of anti-establishment shocks in the 20th century each caused significant disruption and harm to contemporary societies and served as warnings to future generations. They highlight the persistent existence and dangers of the many conflicts, disputes, and undercurrents in the world. Even in the materially prosperous 21st century, where most people no longer worry about basic subsistence, individuals continue to fiercely contend over issues such as identity, dignity, rights, and representation—often to the point of ruthless and even existential struggles.

At its core, many societal problems do not have a perfect solution. Due to the inherent flaws in human nature and the structure of society, injustice and inequality persist in reality. The struggles between individuals and conflicts among groups are, in many ways, endless. The contest between the establishment and anti-establishment forces is an eternal dynamic. When anti-establishment forces prevail, or when national and international orders are reshuffled to establish new systems and orders, it is only a matter of time before new populist movements emerge, dissatisfied with the status quo, to launch fresh waves of anti-establishment efforts. These movements will seek to overthrow what has become the old, once “new” establishment and order, ushering in yet another transformation. Even in relatively just and inclusive societies, there will always be disaffected individuals. Some of them will act on their impulses to disrupt the order, regardless of the costs or broader consequences, leading inevitably to the overthrow of the system at some point. This cycle repeats endlessly, with each struggle and reshuffle bringing considerable destruction and costing many lives.

However, there is room for optimism. After the first two waves of anti-establishment movements and the upheavals they caused subsided, the world ultimately improved. People reflected on the brutality of wars, revolutions, and various forms of violence, leading to greater emphasis on peace, democracy, and justice. Significant progress was made in areas such as the protection of civil rights, support for vulnerable groups, fairer redistribution of resources, and fostering harmonious relations among nations. These improvements helped alleviate conflicts and made both domestic societies and international relations more peaceful. Of course, these gains were not simply “handed down from the heavens”; they were hard-won through the tireless efforts, struggles, and, at times, sacrifices of those fighting for progress and human rights.

While the third wave of anti-establishment and populist movements has been aggressive and its values and orientation are more noticeably negative compared to the second wave, it is still less catastrophic than the first wave, which caused the tragic deaths of over a hundred million people. So far, the third wave has unfolded in a relatively peaceful manner. This suggests there is no need for excessive pessimism. Social unrest and political realignments are both crises of degradation and opportunities for improvement. The outcome depends on human agency.

Regardless, the turmoil brought about by anti-establishment and populist movements will inevitably have negative consequences. Social development and civil rights in many countries will suffer setbacks, and vulnerable groups are often the ones hit hardest during such times.

Those with insight and wisdom in various countries must do their utmost to mitigate social conflicts and minimize the resulting harm and destruction. In particular, those in power and the upper classes must listen more attentively to the voices of the middle and lower classes, show greater concern for the plight of vulnerable groups, and take on greater responsibilities with greater sacrifices. Only by fostering fairness and inclusivity can nations achieve long-term stability, and only then can humanity achieve sustainable development.