By Julian Dierkes
I recently engaged in some political dreaming with very good Mongolian friends. The prompt was, “If you were Grand Khaan/Prime Minister, what would be some changes you would make right away?”. We quickly abanonded the Grand Khaan line of thinking as too anti-democratic.
Obviously, a challenging question for an academic, as we deal in complexity, not decisive action. And, the opportunities that Mongolia has along with the challenges it faces are generally of a complex nature, so not easily addressed with “first act in office” populism.
But one of the answers my friend had, immediately resonated: abolish the prime minister’s security detail!
Posturing
It’s not just the PM who is surrounded by security agents, but the president and other officials as well.
Somehow, officials, i.e. almost all men, seem to believe that being protected by large men makes them look powerful. “Toxic masculinity” in some form is defenitely an element in that; the threat of physical violence in the guise of protection, as a sign of power. It’s not the power of the ideas or the persuasion of the arguments for a policy an individual is pursuing, but rather this attempt at looking powerful, that seems to be the aim here.
Unfortunately, this is a sense of power and of the display of power that seems very reminiscent of V Putin and the bare-chested photos he used to take. As is the case with Putin, there’s no substance to this pose, it’s all posturing.
Take a look at this insta-post from the late May 2025 visit of Austrian president Alexander van der Bellen.
View this post on Instagram
What’s with the motorcade imagery and all the military parades? Recall that van der Bellen was an economics professor, active in the Austrian Green party, and holds a largely ceremonial post.
What’s Wrong with Security Details
Apart from the vacuous understanding of political office, these security details and the cocoon they seem to like to create around officials, isolates these officials from their electorate. Why do these officials need large limousines and motorcades to move around Ulaanbaatar? Why don’t they walk and perhaps encounter some citizens to discuss the challenges that government is facing or the opportunities that officials perceive?
One of the frustrations that many Mongolians report to me is that the government seems far-removed from day-to-day concerns. If you are traveling by motorcade, do you really have a sense of how infuriating the traffic situation can be? If you understood more about traffic, would you really be pursuing “solutions” in the mistaken belief that more roads reduce congestion?
This deliberate withdrawal of politicians from their voting public does not present a good image of democracy to voters who are ultimately called upon to participate in decision-making through elections and other forms.
I also have to imagine that protection is not an entirely insignificant budget item.
Why Security Details?
One of the fortunate characteristics of Mongolian democracy is that there has been very little political violence in the past 35 years. The only very real example would be the murder of S Zorig in October 1998, and even that remains unclear in terms of whether it was politically motivated. Of course, there are occasionally scuffles reported out of parliament, but none of the actual violence associated with oligarchs of the 2000s and 2010s in Russia, for example, and one of the reasons I am uncomfortable with the “oligarch” language.
But, security details and their conspicuous display of muscle and earphones, are not new to Mongolia. The impetus of my now 20-year engagement with Mongolia was the state visit of Pres Bagabandi to Canada. Even then I was surprised that there were security aspects to the visit. Sure, the Canadian government would always want to make sure that an official visitor stay safe, but there were also Mongolian security officers. And this was in 2004. Since then, the size of these security details only seems to be growing.
But really, is there any threat of violence to Mongolian officials? Especially any threat that justifies multi-people, apparently armed security details? I’m naive on these matters and don’t claim to have ever conducted or read any kind of threat assessment. But apart from Ts Munkhbayar waving his rifle at parliament, who is this threat? There is no domestic terrorism that I am aware of. There is no separatism, a sentiment that has fuelled violence elsewhere. There is no real religious conflict. So, what are the threats that officials are being protected from? Or, is it really just the theatre of power that they are acting in.
Keep the Honour Guard
I do have a soft spot for the military honour guard. I reflected on that already twelve years ago during the state visit of Governor General D Johnston to Mongolia.
View this post on Instagram
PS: Less Toxic Macho Posing
Since I used an insta-video off Pres. Khurelsukh’s feed as example of posing above, should also acknowledge that very different content is also posted there, though very occasionally.
View this post on Instagram
