Cornered animals are often amongst the most dangerous. Is the virulence of authoritarian politics in western democracies, often coupled with a retrenchment in free market capitalism, a sign of them recognising that they are facing dusk, or something else?

In 1996 the late geographer Neil Smith published his work on the revanchist city, in which he scrutinized the urban security and regeneration politics of then New York City Mayor Rudi Giuliani, a name which has become familiar again more recently. As New York Mayor Giuliani is largely credited with a significant improvement of NYC’s previously downward sliding crime and urban degeneration record.

Neil Smith held that one of the effects of the Mayor’s policies were to push the boundaries of the city as an open and free place of interaction spatially outward. Giuliani’s policies made parts of New York City deliberately inaccessible for anyone with either less than desirable purchasing power, or a socio-ethnic profile which did not fit the bill of desired white, professional, middle-class gentrification. Giuliani framed the presence and life-styles of many poorer New Yorkers in the areas of New York that he wanted to market to those who have at the expense of those who do not, as an attack on the city. Smith’s analysis was very clear: this was not just about the effect of gentrification closing spaces for those who cannot compete economically (which is bad enough for anyone affected), but a defensive strategy against those who were clearly not considered worth to be part of the city because of who they are.

Denial of rights to urban citizenship and the freedoms that come with it, Etienne Balibar’s ‘droits de cité’, became a strategy to regain control of the urban space by a specific social group. Smith termed this approach ‘revanchist’, an active policy of revenge by those who have the greater bargaining power and political influence against those who have not, who are often poor and non-conforming.

The mantra of ‘attack’ and the need to defend spaces against intrusion and change is actively used by virtually all political leaders and groups involved in the current projects of authoritarianism, including in western democracies. At the core of the definition of what there is to be defended lies an ideal of cultural homogeneity, economic entitlement, and exclusive exercise of power. It is not sufficient to create a space in which these ideals can be lived out for the benefit of a specific social group. The authoritarian ideology also demands that all those who challenge the ideology are divided, and where possible destroyed. This is where the project moves from defence to revenge.

These principles are very visible in Donald Trump’s intervention in foreign policy, however ad hoc they still are, Erdogan’s tactics of massive purges across a range of professional sectors in Turkey for alleged sympathies with the Gülen movement. Victor Orban, like the current Israeli government, combine fence building against unwelcome migrants (Hungary) and Palestinians on their own land (Israel) with crackdowns on non-governmental organisations

The virulence of the authoritarian projects can be explained with the reality of their limited lifespan. In the short or even medium term they may yield consolidation of power, access to resources and comforting of singular identities. Initially the challengers may be overwhelmed or in disarray. For political leaders with short attention spans, horizons of thinking aligned with electoral cycles only, or who have their own retirement in mind (often with good cushion acquired during their time in office) this may be enough. Those with vested commercials interests in the status quo may be given more time to engage with changes they need to go through to cope with tomorrow.

But this short termism is not sufficient for societies who cannot just resign or retire . In the medium to long run the economic models underpinning authoritarian ideologies will wane, and they do it already as can be seen with the decline of coal mining to the benefit of renewables. Ideas about the possibility of a ‘return’ to previous times of prosperity are a fata morgana. Isolationism deprives spaces and societies of the necessary capacity for renewal and innovation that comes with immigration and diversity. This is one of the greatest criticisms of a ‘hard’ BREXIT and policies of exclusion proposed by Donald Trump.

To many the prospect of a US or UK which boils in a culturally limited stew is unattractive enough, but beyond that it is employers and research facilities which warn against an interruption of free and easy access to large and qualified labour markets, be they in the European Union or global. The speed at which the remaining EU countries agreed their negotiation position was extraordinary. The idea that the UK decision to exit the EU would leave the continent divided was wrong, and now leaves the UK in a very weak starting position for the negotiations.

A Conservative commentator recently analysed the decision to call and the outcome of the UK elections which saw the party lose its parliamentary majority: as ‘We have not managed to shoot ourselves in the foot, but shot ourselves in the head’. Those pushing for authoritarian and isolationist solutions in a complex and globally connected world will achieve just that: ruin the prospects of the same groups in society that have been instrumental in bringing them to power in the first place. The future will be back with a vengeance.