Something has happened to democracy in the sense of popularly elected government, and it has happened all over the world. Somehow people have lost faith in elections.
Turnout is declining in many countries; in the case of elections to the European Parliament, the level of voter participation is so risibly low as to call into question the legitimacy of the result.
But turnout apart, we have become accustomed to accepting that parties or candidates who receive 25 percent of the popular vote are "winners." From Holland and Finland to Argentina and Japan, majority governments are formed with minority support.
Nor are the apparent exceptions proof to the contrary. Few American presidents have been supported by much more than 10 percent of eligible voters -- half of the US's eligible voters, indeed, are not even registered to vote; of those who are registered, half do not vote; of those who do vote, less than half vote for the winning candidate.
Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair's "landslide" majority in Britain's House of Commons rests on shaky ground: Labour received just over 40 percent of the vote with a 60 percent turnout at the last election last year. So only 24 percent of the total electorate supported Blair's party.
In most countries, this is clearly very different from what elections looked like 20, let alone 50, years ago. What has happened?
One answer must be that voters distrust political parties. Electoral democracy operates in most countries through the intermediary of organizations which put up candidates representing specific bundles of policy options, a "manifesto" or a "platform." For a number of reasons, however, this time-honored practice no longer works.
Ideological party platforms have lost their force; voters do not accept the specific bundles offered by parties but want to pick and choose. Moreover, political parties have become "machines" made up of highly organized cadres of insiders. The paradox here is that parties have become more tribal having lost their ideological distinctiveness. It is more important to belong than to have a certain set of beliefs.
Such developments removed parties from the ambit of voters. Because most people don't particularly want to belong to a party, playing the party game becomes a minority sport. This increases the public's suspicion of political parties, not least because -- like all professional sports -- playing the game is expensive.
If the cost is borne by the taxpayer, it is resented. But if parties are not state-supported, they must find funds through channels that are often dubious, when not illegal. Many of the great political scandals of recent decades began with the financing of parties and candidates.
Other indices -- such as sharply declining membership rolls -- confirm that parties have become unpopular. Yet parties remain indispensable to elective democracy. The result is an evident disconnection of the visible political actors from the electorate.
Because parties operate in parliaments, the disconnection affects one of the crucial democratic institutions. People no longer think of parliaments as representing them and thus vested with the legitimacy needed to take decisions on their behalf.
At this point, a second, quite separate, development comes into play. People are more impatient than ever. As consumers they are used to instant gratification. But as voters, they must wait before they see any results delivered by the choice they made at the ballot box. Sometimes they never see the desired results.
Democracy needs time, not just for elections, but for deliberation and the exercise of checks and balances. The consumer-voter, however, will not accept this and therefore turns away.
There are alternatives, but each has its own problems as a democratic solution. Direct action by demonstrations has become a regular and often effective occurrence. For the less mobile it can be replaced by electronic expressions of views, from Internet chat-rooms to e-mails to political leaders.
Then there are non-governmental organizations, often undemocratic in their own structures and yet more closely connected, it seems, to citizens. Beyond these, of course, is the possibility of switching off altogether and leaving politics to the professionals so as to concentrate on other dimensions of life.
The latter is the most risky, because it supports the creeping authoritarianism that is a sign of our times. But the other signs of disconnection also create a highly unstable condition in which one can never tell how representative the prevailing views are. Some want to cut through the tangle with more direct democracy. But lasting connections between leaders and governed can not be created by reducing public debate to simple referendum alternatives.
There is much to be said for holding on to the classical institutions of parliamentary democracy and trying to reconnect them with the citizenry. After all, unpopular parties and falling electoral turnout may merely be passing phenomena. New parties may arise and breathe more life into elections and representative government. But this will probably not be enough to restore the popular legitimacy that elected governments have lost.
So rethinking democracy and its institutions must be a top priority for all to whom the constitution of liberty is dear.
Ralf Dahrendorf, the author of numerous acclaimed books, is a member of the British House of Lords, a former rector of the London School of Economics and also a former warden of St. Anthony's College, Oxford.
Copyright: Project Syndicate and the Institute for Human Sciences
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS