In the heart of America, where the rise of personalities such as Trump, the events of January 6, and other incidents have clouded the quality of democracy, there is a growing skepticism about democracy. Also, an alternative model for nations outside the democratic spectrum is starting to emerge with the rise of China, where security and stability are discussed more than liberty and democracy.
You can also read: FREEDOM OF SPEECH: AMERICAN HYPOCRISY EXPOSED IN ISRAEL
On the afternoon of January 6, 2021, shortly after the 2020 presidential election resulted in the defeat of U.S. President Donald Trump, a group of his loyal followers launched an assault on the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.
This incident demonstrates that the safety of democracy in the United States, where it is believed to have originated, is not guaranteed.
Former President Trump faces criminal charges related to his alleged attempts to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. These charges include four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy to impede others from exercising their constitutional rights. These allegations pose significant challenges to the principles of democracy.
Synopsis of Worldwide Present-day Democracy
Today’s political climate is marked by extreme polarization, unease, and a reduction in public confidence in governments (and democracy overall). Globally, this progression has resulted in the emergence of populist movements and the election of strong, autocratic leaders. In recent years, there has been criticism of the democratic system that established itself as the “correct” form of government in post-World War II Europe. People are starting to doubt democracy’s worth even in the democratic capitals of the world, such as the United States, Europe, and Australia.
Subsequently, democratic uprisings across Latin America resulted in the liberation of Argentina (1983), Brazil (1988), and Chile (1990) from military and bureaucratic authoritarian rule. With the popular overthrow of the Marcos family’s rule in 1986, the wave spread to Asia. In 1987, military regimes in Taiwan and South Korea gave way to democratic ones. Later, in 1998, a popular movement in Indonesia ousted General Suharto from office.
After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990–1991, there was increased optimism about the globalization of democracy. Democratic systems were the goal of the recently independent nations that had been ruled by the Soviet Union. But in practice, things were not so; authoritarian regimes persisted in many Central Asian countries, including Belarus, Hungary, Poland, and others.
The Deterioration of Democratic Governance
Let’s clarify this point: democracy, while imperfect, has been famously described by Winston Churchill as “the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Critics of democracy argue that entrusting citizens with no political knowledge or interest to shape the government’s direction is fundamentally flawed.
However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that a democracy led by the “knowledgeable” or “interested” can be rooted in privilege. It’s worth noting that, frequently, marginalized communities and minorities lack the same access to pertinent information needed to form political opinions or develop an interest in political affairs.
A wave of democratic retreat followed the “third wave” of democracy, with countries in the former Eastern Bloc returning to authoritarian rule. Poland, Hungary, and other nations returned to authoritarian socialist rule and a new paradigm that combined market-driven capitalist economies with authoritarian regimes arose.
Sungmin Cho’s 2023 article in the Journal of Contemporary China challenges the relevance of modernization theory in elucidating China’s halted shift towards democracy. Despite shifts in aspirations within the emerging middle class, as evidenced by several surveys, the impediments to democratic transition persist.
As part of his renowned Gettysburg Address given in 1863 during the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” We were unaware at the time, though, that the democracy that is often praised in America was only available to men until 1920, when women were given the right to vote, ending a 70-year battle that had started with the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. After the Civil War, slavery was officially outlawed, but it took another 100 years for African Americans to be granted full voting rights.
Only 24 nations—including Norway, New Zealand, Iceland, Sweden, and Denmark—were acknowledged as “full democracies” in 2022, out of 48 that were classified as “flawed democracies,” according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index
Skepticism Serving as a Catalyst
Now, let’s set aside all shades of subtlety and consider a (hypothetical) scenario where citizens and governments share unwavering trust. What incentives would drive citizens to engage actively in a government they have complete faith in? what could motivate them to initiate actions, and why would they do so if they believe the administration always makes the right choices for them? How could administrations accurately determine the needs and preferences of their citizens?
It turns out that a lack of faith in politics has the potential to “stimulate political involvement and promote healthy skepticism.” The first case of participatory budgeting in Brazil’s Porto Alegre stems from a deep-seated mistrust. In this 1980s example, participatory budgeting was a useful tool for allocating resources and redistributing authority within disadvantaged communities.
Even in this specific instance, mistrust about the project’s value and outcome fueled negative sentiments that had prompted the need for a participatory initiative. For progress to be sustained, citizens and governments must have a strong sense of mutual trust. However, this does imply that, in moderation, skepticism can be beneficial, much like your beloved glass of Merlot during dinner. It encourages people to challenge the beliefs and policies of the government, pose questions, and—most importantly—take an active role in shaping local policy. In summary, it’s not always a deal-breaker to have a small amount of mistrust toward the government.
In today’s world of political polarization and growing doubts about democracy, it’s essential to remember that while democracy may have its imperfections, it remains a valuable system of governance. However, the criticism of democracy should not be dismissed, as it raises important questions about privilege and access to political knowledge. In the face of skepticism and the emergence of alternative models, it is important to remember the fundamental principles of democracy. It may face challenges, but it remains a beacon of hope for a more just and equitable world and it’s up to us to engage, question, and work together to safeguard and strengthen this essential form of governance.
