Yes, Democracy Is Under Threat

A few weeks ago, I received an invitation that surprised me. The RAND Corporation, a well-known American nonpartisan and nonprofit research organization primarily recognized for its military research, invited me to a conference titled "Democracy in Crisis?" Funded by the U.S. Congress, RAND depends on support from both Democrats and Republicans. Their decision to address issues related to democracy—reportedly for the first time—was cynically commented on at the conference by Francis Fukuyama, famed for his "end of history" thesis.

“If you're going to deal with democracy, you have to start with democracy in the U.S. And you can't do that critically and objectively without angering a large part of the Republican Party.”

The RAND representatives didn’t respond to his remark, but I do give them credit for including a number of speakers likely to be critical of the state of democracy in the West, especially in the United States. That’s why I decided to accept the invitation. If we want to contribute to positive change, echo chambers of like-minded people patting each other on the back just aren’t enough.

My remarks at the conference emphasized the necessity of social justice for democracy, and the idea that any credible effort to promote democracy globally requires consistent adherence to democratic values both at home and in foreign policy. The American participants—including quite a few Republicans—didn’t exactly give me a standing ovation, but they were willing to listen and discuss. Perhaps it helped that their most extreme colleagues were, at the same time, fraternizing in Budapest with their European comrades in the fight against “wokeness” and “cultural Marxism.”

I admit I’m cheating a bit with this column, as it's essentially a transcript of my speech at the conference. Here’s what I said:

“We live in times when everyone is a geopolitics and global security expert. I don’t know how RAND manages to stay in business under these conditions—but thank you for the invitation.

We also live in times when our attention is consumed by geopolitical tensions and war. And of course, everyone now ‘knows’ the truth about what drove President Putin and the Russian Federation to launch an aggression against a neighboring country. The truth, however, is not universal, and everyone defends their version with passion and certainty.

In this competitive market of alternative facts, I side with those who don’t believe that NATO threatened Russia into attacking. Nor do I buy the narrative that the invasion was necessary to protect the purity of the Russian people from the corrupting influence of the decadent West. If anything, the Kremlin would find plenty of like-minded allies in the West—especially in the U.S.—who agree with such views. Trust me, no one is more anti-woke than President Putin and his Kremlin comrades.

In my opinion—and based on nearly three decades of working with both Ukraine and Russia, the latter being a member of the Council of Europe until it was expelled a little over a year ago—Putin was deeply alarmed by the prospect of Ukraine developing into a functioning liberal democracy.

Even though the country faces numerous challenges—weak institutions, a lack of democratic experience, and endemic corruption—this was clearly the choice of the majority of Ukrainian citizens. They demonstrated this during the Maidan revolution, in subsequent elections, and in their resolute response to Russian aggression.

A democratic Ukraine—economically, politically, institutionally, and socially functional and successful—posed a threat Putin couldn’t tolerate. Just imagine what could happen if his own citizens realized there was a viable alternative next door to nationalist autarky and authoritarian rule.

Ukraine, therefore, is not only fighting for its survival. This is also a battle for liberal democracy—in Ukraine and around the world.

But the threat to liberal democracy isn’t just external. There are internal dangers, too.

First, we’re losing the support of many citizens who have lost trust in the institutions of liberal democracy and who are either indifferent to it or openly prefer authoritarian alternatives. This isn’t the first time in modern history we’ve seen this. Europe’s turbulent past offers lessons we should not ignore.

To quote Newsweek’s correspondent from Bucharest, Rosie Waldeck, in June 1940, after Nazi troops marched into Paris:

“The fall of France marked the climax of twenty years of democracy's unfulfilled promises to deal with unemployment, inflation, deflation, labor unrest, party selfishness, and more. Europe, weary of itself and its principles, almost sighed in relief when things were ‘put in order’… It thought Hitler was a smart man—unpleasant, but smart. He made his country strong. Why not try it that way?”

And we know how that ended. As Mark Twain reportedly said:

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”

The survival of liberal democracy depends on a contract with citizens—that their tomorrow will be better than their yesterday. When that contract is broken—or when people start believing it has been—when there is no social justice, democracy is in trouble.

Second, we are losing the support of many young people. Yes, they are concerned. Yes, they are angry. And yes, they are more engaged than young people were a decade or two ago. But their activism is not always progressive or democratic. They feel, often rightly, that democracy has failed them. This happens when people fear the future.

A 2020 survey found that a vast majority of young people in Western Europe are deeply worried about climate change. But over 50% said they trust authoritarian regimes more than democracies to deal with the crisis. A few years ago, only one in three young Dutch citizens said they considered living in a democracy important. Just three months ago, another survey showed that nearly a quarter of Dutch millennials and Gen Z believe the Holocaust never happened.

I’m not picking on the Netherlands. But if that’s the state of democracy among youth in one of the world’s most stable liberal democracies, we should be seriously concerned about support elsewhere.

Third, we must be alarmed by the fact that the model of liberal democracy is losing global support. The reasons are many, and not all of them lie at the feet of the West. But even in the context of Russia’s aggression, we must ask: why have so many countries and people outside the Western hemisphere chosen not to side with the West in condemning the invasion and supporting its clear victim?

Could it be because of how the West itself respects its own sermons on democracy and international law? Have we always been consistent in our commitment to democratic principles?

These are not “whataboutism” questions—those are just cynical tricks to justify one injustice with another. These are difficult but necessary questions we must answer critically if we want to restore trust in an international order based on democratic rule of law and respect for individual freedom and human dignity. For everyone.

So, the answer to the question posed by the conference’s title is unfortunately a clear yes. Democracy is under threat. Reversing its decline and restoring trust and popular support—without which democracy cannot succeed or survive—won’t be easy.

We’ll have to take a hard look in the mirror. We face a long-haul, intercontinental journey out of our comfort zones and deeply entrenched patterns of thought and behavior. We’ll need to rethink the link between prosperity and people’s trust in democracy. We’ll have to invest in education and give young people a real say in decisions about their future. We must offer them a perspective of the future they won’t fear.

We’ll have to work hard to build a global alliance for democracy—one based on consistent respect for international law, mutual trust, solidarity, and dignity. As long as the most powerful say one thing and do another, things will only get worse.

As I said: it won’t be easy. But in the end, ladies and gentlemen—do we really have a choice?

Just look at the alternatives."