his short report was compiled from a collective intelligence gathering of World in 2050’s (W2050) Senior Fellows (Institutions Committee). The meeting took place under the Chatham House Rule, so specific ideas will not be directly attributed to any specific Fellow. W2050 Senior Fellows attending the committee meeting were: Thomas Garrett, Joshua Huminski, Christopher Karwacki, Bernhard Kowatsch, and Ian Ralby. Also present were W2050 Executive Director Dr. Shane C. Szarkowski and Editor Jeremy Fugleberg.
There is much talk globally about the wide range of external pressures that are harming democratic institutions. Yet it can be difficult to discern whether the pain points of democratic institutions are caused by those pressures, or whether they are symptomatic of a broader systemic decline in institutions themselves. Members of W2050’s Senior Fellows Committee on Societal and Governance Institutions met in April to discuss the challenges currently faced by democracy, what is or is not working, and potential steps to take to respond to those threats.
The threats democracies face
This should be a year to celebrate democracy. There are more elections taking place this year than at any point in history, leading to the dubbing of 2024 as a “super election year.” Yet this year also highlights the pressures that democracies face. To be fair, democracy as a concept is by its nature always under some degree of threat, and by extension, so are democracies. Just like any political system in history, it can potentially fall prey to other ideologies. And like all political ideologies, democracy nurtures the seeds of its own destruction. In the case of democracies, they generally include a built–in function of harboring and even platforming dissenters, which can use that platform to take down the system that has sustained them—sometimes with externally fueled support.
Yet this moment in history is a uniquely troubling one, and it comes with a broad range of challenges for democracies. The polycrisis, as it is known, is a conflagration of historic proportions, although opinions differ on what makes it up. Some primary elements include worsening climate change, rising economic inequality, spiking geopolitical tensions including faceoffs between nuclear powers, and the explosion of artificial intelligence. This battery of challenges provides a unique range of pressures on both established and nascent democracies, powering external threats and elevating internal conflicts. In addition, the global spread and density of communication, whether via social media, messaging or news media, has laid bare the shortcomings of democracies, which by design foster access to information that highlights what is working in other political systems, and underlines what is not working within democracies themselves. Combined with extant pressures, this awareness can shift from providing fuel for reform to providing combustion for open conflict and systemic change.
How are democracies reacting?
The tenor and effectiveness of democracies' responses to these challenges are varied. Some democracies have proven to be sclerotic, unfocused, self–sabotaging, and/or impotent in the arena of ideas. Others have been more successful in actively resisting these pressures and even championing what makes democracy truly meaningful to those in the polity.
Some established democracies are wallowing, failing to differentiate or prioritize the internal challenges they face, undermining their ability to respond to those challenges. Often populations in democracies are demanding change, fueled by what they see via the global high–information media environment: other countries, other political systems, are more responsive or better at meeting the needs of their citizens.
Others are losing sight of and faith in what democracy even is anymore. The devolution of the definition of democracy from function to form has sapped faith in its power and gives challengers room to undercut it even further. Democracy has for many no longer become a political ideology crucial to a secure place in international society or crucial to sustain global peace. This kind of definitional erosion has contributed to the erosion of democracy inside numerous countries, such as Guatemala, Pakistan, and Poland. In these states, some political parties seek advantage by setting up barriers to free and fair elections, while still seeking to present themselves as supporters of political systems that are increasingly democratic in form, through the holding of elections, not functionally responsive to their citizens’ needs.
Not all democracies are failing to understand the moment. The Solomon Islands, for example, is a nascent democracy struggling due to strong external pressure from China, as it seeks to strengthen its hand against the United States and its allies in the Indo–Pacific region. Yet this is a cautionary tale, because seeing a problem and being able to build resilience against that problem are not the same. The Solomon Islands can clearly see China’s pressure campaign, but doesn’t itself have the resources to counteract it without much-needed support from democratic allies. Those allies might have the resources to act—and in this case, provide crucial aid to the Islands—but have so far failed to realize the existential nature of the moment.
The main question remains: Are these reactions a harbinger of global democratic decline? Democracies find themselves at a precarious moment. How they respond to the challenges they face in the coming months and years will determine their fate.
Priorities for renewing the resilience of democracy
Build resilience to meet the moment: Guard against internal institutional decline by focusing on systemic weaknesses. Get laser focused on institutional health. Look to good governance principles for a roadmap for mending and strengthening internal institutional responsiveness and accountability—the most important measure of whether a government is working to meet the growing and evolving needs of its citizens.
Repair and refresh what it means to be a democracy: Elections aren’t enough. Democracy as a political identity needs a revamp, a restoration of seeing democracy is emblematic of form, not function. It is simply not sufficient to hold elections, if the democracies lack or dispose of good, responsive governance for its voters.
Reject the false "stability versus democracy" dilemma: Amid the polycrisis, stability can be a powerful goal. Yet stability is not in itself a political system—it is an outcome that can be obtained many different ways—so a “stability versus democracy” framing is false and misleading. Systems that prioritize stability may achieve some appearance of stability, but often only look stable, as they lack the democratic resilience of truly responsive governance.
Inhabit the reality of democracy as a global value: Democracy does not belong to the West. Non-Western democracies are often taking the lead in the global ideological arena and are crucial partners in the battle against the rising tide of authoritarianism.
See, then act: It is not sufficient to only observe where the problems lie; seeing is just a crucial first step. Democracies must also enhance their ability to act on pain points. Less resilient or nascent democracies might have the ability to see and understand existential threats, but don’t have the ability to appropriately respond. Mature democracies who can see an act must take care of their own house but also look to aid less–capable democracies.
a global affairs media network
Facing threats, democracies must first look inward
Parthenon in Athens, Greece. Image by Emy Nguyen from Unsplash.
July 2, 2024
W2050 Senior Fellows met to discuss external pressures that are harming democratic institutions. After analyzing the threats democracies face, some conclusions that emerged were the need to build resilience, refresh what it means to be a democracy, and act on pain points.
T
his short report was compiled from a collective intelligence gathering of World in 2050’s (W2050) Senior Fellows (Institutions Committee). The meeting took place under the Chatham House Rule, so specific ideas will not be directly attributed to any specific Fellow. W2050 Senior Fellows attending the committee meeting were: Thomas Garrett, Joshua Huminski, Christopher Karwacki, Bernhard Kowatsch, and Ian Ralby. Also present were W2050 Executive Director Dr. Shane C. Szarkowski and Editor Jeremy Fugleberg.
There is much talk globally about the wide range of external pressures that are harming democratic institutions. Yet it can be difficult to discern whether the pain points of democratic institutions are caused by those pressures, or whether they are symptomatic of a broader systemic decline in institutions themselves. Members of W2050’s Senior Fellows Committee on Societal and Governance Institutions met in April to discuss the challenges currently faced by democracy, what is or is not working, and potential steps to take to respond to those threats.
The threats democracies face
This should be a year to celebrate democracy. There are more elections taking place this year than at any point in history, leading to the dubbing of 2024 as a “super election year.” Yet this year also highlights the pressures that democracies face. To be fair, democracy as a concept is by its nature always under some degree of threat, and by extension, so are democracies. Just like any political system in history, it can potentially fall prey to other ideologies. And like all political ideologies, democracy nurtures the seeds of its own destruction. In the case of democracies, they generally include a built–in function of harboring and even platforming dissenters, which can use that platform to take down the system that has sustained them—sometimes with externally fueled support.
Yet this moment in history is a uniquely troubling one, and it comes with a broad range of challenges for democracies. The polycrisis, as it is known, is a conflagration of historic proportions, although opinions differ on what makes it up. Some primary elements include worsening climate change, rising economic inequality, spiking geopolitical tensions including faceoffs between nuclear powers, and the explosion of artificial intelligence. This battery of challenges provides a unique range of pressures on both established and nascent democracies, powering external threats and elevating internal conflicts. In addition, the global spread and density of communication, whether via social media, messaging or news media, has laid bare the shortcomings of democracies, which by design foster access to information that highlights what is working in other political systems, and underlines what is not working within democracies themselves. Combined with extant pressures, this awareness can shift from providing fuel for reform to providing combustion for open conflict and systemic change.
How are democracies reacting?
The tenor and effectiveness of democracies' responses to these challenges are varied. Some democracies have proven to be sclerotic, unfocused, self–sabotaging, and/or impotent in the arena of ideas. Others have been more successful in actively resisting these pressures and even championing what makes democracy truly meaningful to those in the polity.
Some established democracies are wallowing, failing to differentiate or prioritize the internal challenges they face, undermining their ability to respond to those challenges. Often populations in democracies are demanding change, fueled by what they see via the global high–information media environment: other countries, other political systems, are more responsive or better at meeting the needs of their citizens.
Others are losing sight of and faith in what democracy even is anymore. The devolution of the definition of democracy from function to form has sapped faith in its power and gives challengers room to undercut it even further. Democracy has for many no longer become a political ideology crucial to a secure place in international society or crucial to sustain global peace. This kind of definitional erosion has contributed to the erosion of democracy inside numerous countries, such as Guatemala, Pakistan, and Poland. In these states, some political parties seek advantage by setting up barriers to free and fair elections, while still seeking to present themselves as supporters of political systems that are increasingly democratic in form, through the holding of elections, not functionally responsive to their citizens’ needs.
Not all democracies are failing to understand the moment. The Solomon Islands, for example, is a nascent democracy struggling due to strong external pressure from China, as it seeks to strengthen its hand against the United States and its allies in the Indo–Pacific region. Yet this is a cautionary tale, because seeing a problem and being able to build resilience against that problem are not the same. The Solomon Islands can clearly see China’s pressure campaign, but doesn’t itself have the resources to counteract it without much-needed support from democratic allies. Those allies might have the resources to act—and in this case, provide crucial aid to the Islands—but have so far failed to realize the existential nature of the moment.
The main question remains: Are these reactions a harbinger of global democratic decline? Democracies find themselves at a precarious moment. How they respond to the challenges they face in the coming months and years will determine their fate.
Priorities for renewing the resilience of democracy
Build resilience to meet the moment: Guard against internal institutional decline by focusing on systemic weaknesses. Get laser focused on institutional health. Look to good governance principles for a roadmap for mending and strengthening internal institutional responsiveness and accountability—the most important measure of whether a government is working to meet the growing and evolving needs of its citizens.
Repair and refresh what it means to be a democracy: Elections aren’t enough. Democracy as a political identity needs a revamp, a restoration of seeing democracy is emblematic of form, not function. It is simply not sufficient to hold elections, if the democracies lack or dispose of good, responsive governance for its voters.
Reject the false "stability versus democracy" dilemma: Amid the polycrisis, stability can be a powerful goal. Yet stability is not in itself a political system—it is an outcome that can be obtained many different ways—so a “stability versus democracy” framing is false and misleading. Systems that prioritize stability may achieve some appearance of stability, but often only look stable, as they lack the democratic resilience of truly responsive governance.
Inhabit the reality of democracy as a global value: Democracy does not belong to the West. Non-Western democracies are often taking the lead in the global ideological arena and are crucial partners in the battle against the rising tide of authoritarianism.
See, then act: It is not sufficient to only observe where the problems lie; seeing is just a crucial first step. Democracies must also enhance their ability to act on pain points. Less resilient or nascent democracies might have the ability to see and understand existential threats, but don’t have the ability to appropriately respond. Mature democracies who can see an act must take care of their own house but also look to aid less–capable democracies.
