In recent years we have received a flood of news about the emergence of extremist politicians and the rise of populist governments (left or right), which make us reflect on the fragility of our democracies.
Such fragility refers us quickly to coups d’etat (tanks in the streets, armed men, loss of freedoms). But at the present time the political dispute by violent means lacks social consensus, fortunately. Like communism or fascism, such actions belong to the past. In the 21st century, democratic fragility acquires another expression, less violent but equally dangerous: through democratically elected leaders who, in an abrupt or gradual manner (as happened in Venezuela), dismantle the system.
The gradual erosion of democracy is usually imperceptible for citizens, since the process takes place under democratic procedures (elections, Congress and Supreme Court in office, free media). Extremist leaders disguise themselves with seemingly praiseworthy objectives (banish elites that rule for their own benefit, fight against corruption, restore power to the people) while altering, in a gradual and imperceptible way, the democratic mechanisms to manipulate the institutions and increase the discretional facets of its power
David Runciman and other authors agree that crises open a window of opportunity for populist governments to deepen and accelerate these processes. Natural disasters, economic crises, radical technological changes (such as current ones), threats to national security (terrorism) and increasing inequality create conditions under which populism becomes strong.
Crises allow to justify antidemocratic measures; they represent an excellent opportunity to dismantle, slowly, the constitutional norms that limit personalist-style leaderships, to then rewrite it according to the interests and needs of the populism of the day. Citizens, fearful and vulnerable to a crisis, become tolerant.
Extremists appear in all democracies, even in the healthiest and most robust. It is the responsibility of the guardians of democracy (political parties, institutions, media) to prevent extremists from coming to power. Isolate them, avoid political alliances (often justified by thinking that they can be controlled or managed as puppets) or avoid actions that “normalize” their behavior and give them public respect are some possible instruments. Not doing so would imply legitimizing them, automatically incorporating them into the democratic system and allowing the people to consider them a valid electoral alternative.
Recently, Edward Luce, Yascha Mounk, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt published a series of works that analyze these issues. They agree in recommending the strengthening of democratic institutions, the modernization of the relationship between citizens and the political system (with concrete mechanisms such as the reform of the tax system, facilitation of mortgage loans and others of the like), always exercising political tolerance (“competing with adversaries” instead of “fighting enemies”) and institutional moderation (avoid forcing them to the limit of their competences so as not to break them).
Democracies require negotiation, compromise, concessions. The setbacks are inevitable; the victories, always partial. Presidential initiatives may die in Congress or be blocked in the Supreme Court. All politicians are frustrated with these events; but only democratic ones accept these setbacks, tolerating and avoiding constant criticism.
“Losing democracy as a system of government is much worse than losing an election”. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt could not have said it better.
