The world is ever more angry. That is not good.

A vacuum has emerged in politics around the world.

Elections in democratic countries across the globe last year were marked by a decisive rejection of incumbents. Dissatisfaction and anger are the defining features of contemporary politics and the result is untested and unstable governments whose primary focus is sating or redirecting that unhappiness away from themselves. That is a recipe for unrest.

Welcome to 2025.

In Japan, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba presides over a minority government for the first time in 30 years. He is a weak leader, whose rise to power was facilitated by confusion and disorganization within his Liberal Democratic Party and despite public exhaustion with its scandals. His daily fights with the opposition have confirmed that his government has few ideas to address either the malaise or the real problems that drove his predecessor from office.

In France and Germany, governments have collapsed. A new prime minister has been appointed in France — the fourth this year, a record for the Fifth Republic — but the government is struggling to command a sustainable majority in a hung parliament. There is even speculation that President Emmanuel Macron may resign before his term expires in 2027.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is almost certain to be replaced by Christian Democrat Friedrich Merz in elections next month, called after he lost a vote of confidence. The German economy is struggling and the government has a long list of spending needs — infrastructure, defense and social — that it has no idea how to fund.

In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau looks set to be replaced as his popularity plummets. In South Korea, President Yoon Suk Yeol has angered virtually the entire nation — and seemingly ensured his impeachment — by declaring and then rescinding martial law.

Donald Trump will take his place as the 47th president of the United States later this month. Few have mastered the art of grievance as has he. Trump has made anger the leitmotif of his administration, declaring that he is the retribution for all who feel ignored or slighted by other U.S. governments.

Trump has also offered support for like-minded nationalists and populists around the world, and his return to the White House is vindication of their message and a sign that victory can be theirs, too.

Last year, incumbents in every major country that held a national election lost that vote, the first time that has happened in almost 120 years. The hostility to existing leadership was fueled by the conviction that lives are not improving and that future generations will not enjoy the opportunities that their parents and grandparents did. The immediate cause of this conviction was a once in a generation bout of inflation that made wage increases look mean by comparison. Polls show economic dissatisfaction — even when data suggested feelings should be otherwise — drove anti-incumbent sentiment in every major democracy.

The media environment has contributed to this situation. Social media and its algorithms, which thrive on anger, have amplified the discontent — Elon Musk’s ownership of Twitter (now X), coupled with his personal thirst for change, have shaped politics around the world. In recent weeks, Musk has declared his support for Germany’s right-wing Alternative for Germany Party and Nigel Farage, the head of Britain’s Reform U.K. Party, and an avowed nationalist and populist. He has not hesitated to throw millions of dollars behind individuals and causes he likes.

Together, those two factors have created publics unhappy with their elected leaders and ready, if not eager, for change. Worse, in many countries, politics is largely binary, which has produced a toxic political environment. As the center shrinks, voices at the ends of the political spectrum — the extremes — grow more attractive. It isn’t enough to demand a new government, but opponents must be demonized and in the worst cases, dehumanized. Often that thinking transcends domestic politics and frames relations with any outsider. That is at the heart of much of the opprobrium animating the immigration debate in many countries.

Japan has been lucky to avoid the worst of these excesses. It is not immune to them, however. Voters are increasingly fatigued with the LDP and the government’s failure to address longstanding and increasingly weighty problems, income stagnation and increasing inequality among them. Fortunately, as yet, no party spouting simplistic, nationalist slogans has gained traction with the public. That immunity may not last.

The enemies of democracy can take little solace from this sad state of affairs. Autocracies are also suffering. Russia struggles to bear the burden of its war against Ukraine and the West, but after three years the country has undergone structural changes that render it both more capable of withstanding the strain but could, paradoxically because of its rigidity, result in quick shifts in its politics. The brief insurrection of the Wagner Group and the ease of its march toward Moscow was a warning to Vladimir Putin that even his regime is vulnerable.

China is fighting against “Japanification,” with mixed results. Dissatisfaction is mounting as the economy slows. Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power means that there is no other person to blame as conditions deteriorate and things go wrong.

Iran, too, is struggling with the accumulated weight of years of repression, Western sanctions and economic mismanagement. One of the world’s leading oil producers is experiencing daily energy shortages. Younger Iranians have little to look forward to and much to be angry about. Setbacks in the Middle East — the loss of allies in Lebanon, Syria and the Gaza Strip — have contributed to a sense that change is urgently needed. Thus far the regime in Tehran has been tinkering on the margins, but more fundamental reform is needed.

All those governments are mindful of the example of Syria, where the regime of dictator Bashar Assad suddenly collapsed after years of civil war and collective government failure. Even the strongest of strong men can find themselves running for their survival in these turbulent times.

This spiraling discontent presents three distinct dangers. First, there is the risk that a backlash against established parties will privilege anger over capability. Some of Trump’s nominees reflect that mindset. The call for change is impatient and unwilling to heed the realities of governance. Incompetent governments will exacerbate many of the ills that they are intended to correct and create new ones. It is not unclear how they will respond as their problems intensify.

Second, countries wrestling with internal problems are unlikely to pay much attention to events beyond their borders. The growing array of international concerns will get short shrift. Multilateral cooperation will wither; the weakest will suffer as the global commons is deserted.

Third, when governments do turn their attention to foreign affairs, the tendency will be to scapegoat and distract domestic audiences from those continuing and growing dissatisfactions. Thus far, the anger has been contained. There is little sign that governments, other than that of Russia, are inclined to focus their publics on external forces (apart from immigration opportunists in the West).

An angry world has neither the patience nor the creativity to address the mounting problems that are fueling dissatisfaction. Change is needed, but that demands more than simplistic solutions and the all too frequent scapegoating. Real solutions demand collaborative approaches that, ultimately, are based on compromise — compromise that is damned near impossible with a dehumanized opposition. It’s a grim outlook for the year ahead.