Breaking news: Governments across the political ideology spectrum are not popular
You don’t need to write a short novel to describe an obvious event.
All forms of government these days are corrupt in one shape or form as well as inefficient as the electors (politicians) struggle to hold power against rivals.
"Breaking news" indeed, since this is certainly the first time I'm being confronted with the far-reaching, generic and rather daring theory that "governments these days aren't popular" plain and simple... But wrong, in fact. It certainly depends on which government, because popularity strongly varies from one example to another, as any comparative empirical analysis will yield.
The Russian government for instance has continuously proved to be highly popular among its constituency for the past couple of decades. President Vladimirovich Putin's approval rate, which jumped from around 65% to over 80% since the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, has been the envy of western leaders.
Besides, popularity and legitimacy aren't exactly identical concepts.
But the alternative to government is anarchy. Since that isn’t a better option, people just stop voting knowing outing one crook will bring in another crook. Hence why voter turnout has been dropping in many countries. Wether democratic or authoritarian is irrelevant. The citizens have realized change just doesn’t happen anymore and governments are brutally inefficient at meeting their needs.
Some political systems do enjoy a significant degree of legitimation in this day and age. There's no general rule in this regard. Nor is there any widely accepted finding that governance is destined to be corrupt and inefficient today. Tall claims like these cannot be tailored on the go, they've got to be based on concrete data and lots of methodical work to be taken seriously.
Actually it's the opposite that happens to have been established, since it was shown indeed that where there's crisis of legitimation, causes may vary considerably. Political apathy in liberal "democracies" isn't grounded in the exact same factors as political apathy in other types of systems. Causes also show qualitative differences in developed and developing nations.
I very much doubt that scholars of political science who're arriving at these conclusions, are going to waste humongous space equivalent to thousands of articles and books just to "describe an obvious event".
Yet another very interesting looking paper:
Walden Bello, The Global Crisis of Legitimacy of Liberal Democracy, in Globalization and the Washington Consensus: Its Influence on Democracy and Development in the South, Gladys Lechini (editor), Buenos Aires , CLACSO (Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales), 2008.
Like the previously cited ones, the above work is focusing on liberal "democracies". Its demonstrations and conclusions are case-specific and don't apply to just any contemporary political system and government.
Conclusion: we're witnessing a crisis of legitimacy characteristic of liberal and secular so-called democracy. It's not a general characteristic of our contemporary era and doesn't affect every state invariably. This has been illustrated beyond a doubt by ample and valuable scientific research.