Is Democracy Failing Worldwide?

[Exarch]

The people at The Economist certainly believes neoliberal democracy is failing:

the very institutions that are meant to provide models for new democracies have come to seem outdated and dysfunctional in established ones. The United States has become a byword for gridlock, so obsessed with partisan point-scoring that it has come to the verge of defaulting on its debts twice in the past two years. Its democracy is also corrupted by gerrymandering, the practice of drawing constituency boundaries to entrench the power of incumbents. This encourages extremism, because politicians have to appeal only to the party faithful, and in effect disenfranchises large numbers of voters. And money talks louder than ever in American politics. Thousands of lobbyists (more than 20 for every member of Congress) add to the length and complexity of legislation, the better to smuggle in special privileges. All this creates the impression that American democracy is for sale and that the rich have more power than the poor, even as lobbyists and donors insist that political expenditure is an exercise in free speech. The result is that America’s image—and by extension that of democracy itself—has taken a terrible battering.
Nor is the EU a paragon of democracy. The decision to introduce the euro in 1999 was taken largely by technocrats; only two countries, Denmark and Sweden, held referendums on the matter (both said no). Efforts to win popular approval for the Lisbon Treaty, which consolidated power in Brussels, were abandoned when people started voting the wrong way. During the darkest days of the euro crisis the euro-elite forced Italy and Greece to replace democratically elected leaders with technocrats. The European Parliament, an unsuccessful attempt to fix Europe’s democratic deficit, is both ignored and despised. The EU has become a breeding ground for populist parties, such as Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France, which claim to defend ordinary people against an arrogant and incompetent elite. Greece’s Golden Dawn is testing how far democracies can tolerate Nazi-style parties. A project designed to tame the beast of European populism is instead poking it back into life.

Source:http://www.economist.com/news/essays/21596796-democracy-was-most-successful-political-idea-20th-century-why-has-it-run-trouble-and-what-can-be-do

but the curious thing is that it's not just the uppity Brits from THe Economist who're growing more disenchanted with liberal democracy, this from only a few weeks ago in the WaPo:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Is American democracy headed to extinction?

• 
  469
• 
  Share to Facebook
• 
  Share on Twitter
• 
  Share on LinkedIn
• 
  Add to PersonalPost
• 
  Share via Email
• 
  Print Article
• More

By Stein Ringen, Published: March 29


Stein Ringen is an emeritus professor at Oxford University and the author of “Nation of Devils: Democratic Leadership and the Problem of Obedience.”


Behind dysfunctional government, is democracy itself in decay?
It took only 250 years for democracy to disintegrate in ancient Athens. A wholly new form of government was invented there in which the people ruled themselves. That constitution proved marvelously effective. Athens grew in wealth and capacity, fought off the Persian challenge, established itself as the leading power in the known world and produced treasures of architecture, philosophy and art that bedazzle to this day. But when privilege, corruption and mismanagement took hold, the lights went out.


It would be 2,000 years before democracy was reinvented in the U.S. Constitution, now as representative democracy. Again, government by popular consent proved ingenious. The United States grew into the world’s leading power — economically, culturally and militarily. In Europe, democracies overtook authoritarian monarchies and fascist and communist dictatorships. In recent decades, democracy’s spread has made the remaining autocracies a minority.
The second democratic experiment is approaching 250 years. It has been as successful as the first. But the lesson from Athens is that success does not breed success. Democracy is not the default. It is a form of government that must be created with determination and that will disintegrate unless nurtured. In the United States and Britain, democracy is disintegrating when it should be nurtured by leadership. If the lights go out in the model democracies, they will not stay on elsewhere.
It’s not enough for governments to simply be democratic; they must deliver or decay. In Britain, government is increasingly ineffectual. The constitutional scholar Anthony King has described it as declining from “order” to “mess” in less than 30 years. During 10 years of New Labor rule, that proposition was tested and confirmed. In 1997 a new government was voted in with a mandate and determination to turn the tide on Thatcherite inequality. It was given all the parliamentary power a democratic government could dream of and benefited from 10 years of steady economic growth. But a strong government was defeated by a weak system of governance. It delivered nothing of what it intended and left Britain more unequal than where the previous regime had left off.
The next government, a center-right coalition, has proved itself equally unable. It was supposed to repair damage from the economic crisis but has responded with inaction on the causes of crisis, in a monopolistic *financial-services sector, and with a brand of austerity that protects the privileged at the expense of the poor. Again, what has transpired is inability rather than ill will. Both these governments came up against concentrations of economic power that have become politically unmanageable.
Meanwhile, the health of the U.S. system is even worse than it looks. The three branches of government are designed to deliver through checks and balances. But balance has become gridlock, and the United States is not getting the governance it needs. Here, the link between inequality and inability is on sharp display. Power has been sucked out of the constitutional system and usurped by actors such as PACs, think tanks, media and lobbying organizations.
In the age of mega-expensive politics, candidates depend on sponsors to fund permanent campaigns. When money is allowed to transgress from markets, where it belongs, to politics, where it has no business, those who control it gain power to decide who the successful candidates will be — those they wish to fund — and what they can decide once they are in office. Rich supporters get two swings at influencing politics, one as voters and one as donors. Others have only the vote, a power that diminishes as political inflation deflates its value. It is a misunderstanding to think that candidates chase money. It is money that chases candidates.
In Athens, democracy disintegrated when the rich grew super-rich, refused to play by the rules and undermined the established system of government. That is the point that the United States and Britain have reached.
Nearly a century ago, when capitalist democracy was in a crisis not unlike the present one, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned: “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” Democracy weathered that storm for two reasons: It is not inequality as such that destroys democracy but the more recent combination of inequality and transgression. Furthermore, democracy was then able to learn from crisis. The New Deal tempered economic free-for-all, primarily through the 1933 Banking Act, and gave the smallfolk new social securities.



The lesson from Athens is that success breeds complacency. People, notably those in privilege, stopped caring, and democracy was neglected. Six years after the global economic crisis, the signs from the model democracies are that those in privilege are unable to care and that our systems are unable to learn. The crisis started in out-of-control financial services industries in the United States and Britain, but control has not been reasserted. Economic inequality has followed through to political inequality, and democratic government is bereft of power and capacity. Brandeis was not wrong; he was ahead of his time.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-american-democracy-headed-to-extinction/2014/03/28/f8084fbe-aa34-11e3-b61e-8051b8b52d06_story.html

clearly, something is rotten in the state of America (to take an example)

All this, after all that triumphalism, all that 'end of history' francis fukuyama BS that people believed in back in the 90s along with cold fusion and Iraqi WMDs. Man, the world has changed.
Democracy as a universal political system is fast becoming unviable, as discontent grows and the economy slows...

[conon394]

What is that smell oh its more BS from Exarch

First: Your cited analysis of Athens is preposterously piss poor. Athens did not fail it was conquered by a massive Macedonian military machine and the system it enforced was less innovative, less just, less equitable and more corrupt. On balance no rational person would pick Macedonian, Roman or pre-democratic Athens as an option unless they were absolutely assured they would be in the 1% and that is a small club.

"In Athens, democracy disintegrated when the rich grew super-rich, refused to play by the rules and undermined the established system of government. "

Umm that is so fantastically untrue it made me snort coffee out my nose

OK Exarch so let's agree shall we you are citing Ancient history supposed analysis that is so bad it would get an F in any 100 level course taught by anyone with a two brain cells to rub together.

But even crap can have a grain of truth - usually corn - there is no doubt money and corporate personhood is becoming a real threat in the US as is a concentration of wealth. But of course there are reforms that can deal with that you might want to recall that back in the day say 1930 or so

Democracy as a universal political system is fast becoming unviable, as discontent grows and the economy slows...

You could count the number of democracies on what one hand

[Exarch]

What is that smell oh its more BS from Exarch

First: Your cited analysis of Athens is preposterously piss poor. Athens did not fail it was conquered by a massive Macedonian military machine and the system it enforced was less innovative, less just, less equitable and more corrupt. On balance no rational person would pick Macedonian, Roman or pre-democratic Athens as an option unless they were absolutely assured they would be in the 1% and that is a small club.

"In Athens, democracy disintegrated when the rich grew super-rich, refused to play by the rules and undermined the established system of government. "

Umm that is so fantastically untrue it made me snort coffee out my nose

OK Exarch so let's agree shall we you are citing Ancient history supposed analysis that is so bad it would get an F in any 100 level course taught by anyone with a two brain cells to rub together.

But even crap can have a grain of truth - usually corn - there is no doubt money and corporate personhood is becoming a real threat in the US as is a concentration of wealth. But of course there are reforms that can deal with that you might want to recall that back in the day say 1930 or so



You could count the number of democracies on what one hand
[/FONT][/COLOR]

man, you probably tripped over yourself trying to write this, desperate to prove me wrong, "make it stop!! make it stop!!! take it back!!! nyaah!!"
cuz if you'd, oh i don't know, stopped for a moment and read the links and articles, you would've realised these are essays and articles, and essays and articles from serious and concerned folks who see the state of things as they are: rotten as theon's testicle.

i mean, look around you, can you name one single liberal democracy that's done well for itself after 08?and i mean done well economically and socially based on the liberal democratic system of government?
nup, i do however see lots of secession movements in democratic EU and lots of anti-democratic actions by the EU an the gridlock in Washington and heaps of liberal democracies utterly dependent on an supposedly 'autocratic state' like China; i also see heaps of 'austerity' in these liberal democracies, none of which are handling such 'austerity' very well. Spain just had massive riots last week on austerity

[Plan C]

man, you probably tripped over yourself trying to write this, desperate to prove me wrong, "make it stop!! make it stop!!! take it back!!! nyaah!!"
cuz if you'd, oh i don't know, stopped for a moment and read the links and articles, you would've realised these are essays and articles, and essays and articles from serious and concerned folks who see the state of things as they are: rotten as theon's testicle.

i mean, look around you, can you name one single liberal democracy that's done well for itself after 08?and i mean done well economically and socially based on the liberal democratic system of government?
nup, i do however see lots of secession movements in democratic EU and lots of anti-democratic actions by the EU an the gridlock in Washington and heaps of liberal democracies utterly dependent on an supposedly 'autocratic state' like China; i also see heaps of 'austerity' in these liberal democracies, none of which are handling such 'austerity' very well. Spain just had massive riots last week on austerity

Iceland is the only one that springs to mind.

[Mangalore]

Iceland is the only one that springs to mind.

This only if one hasn't read the news on how well iceland was doing post 2008. It says a lot that they suddenly wanted to join the Euro...

I don't really follow what the criticism is saying. The Economist is argument that democracy fades in autocratic systems as long as these systems provide wealth. Oh, really? You needed to bring up China to get that idea?

Otherwise democracies always have their ups and downs. In the 60s you had a whole wave of discontent and quasi revolution expressed on the streets. That actually was healthy for democracy. Today similar stuff happens from an even higher level of liberty so what? Economic harships aren't new either.

The only real difference is that democracy is the mainstay today while it was the exception 100 years ago. Russia and China have a problem because their system is not attractive as an ideology and not what the majority of the world population sees as an ideal. They need social improvements to prove their autocratic style is acceptable.

That doesn't mean that democracy might not face a new shift thanks to modern communications. It's also normal that this stuff lags behind advancments. The challenge is how to balance populism with democratic ideals. Already the Greeks had discussions about the pros and cons of direct democracy because of it and modern states instated representative democracies to deal with their bigger geography and these problems.

[Plan C]

This only if one hasn't read the news on how well iceland was doing post 2008. It says a lot that they suddenly wanted to join the Euro.

Sorry mate, wasn't doing a massive amount of reading, just cursory glances, like this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygr...success-story/

But I don't live there, so it's by the by.

[Derpy Hooves]

i mean, look around you, can you name one single liberal democracy that's done well for itself after 08?and i mean done well economically and socially based on the liberal democratic system of government?

This view is extremely reminiscent of the view that capitalism was going out the window in the 30s, since the Soviet Union was not suffering from the same effects of the Great Depression as the capitalist economies.
What is going on is simply an economic crisis that will resolve itself in a few years. Furthermore, the goal behind the liberal democracy is having a government that receives its legitimacy from the people​ not something else. To maintain that legitimacy elections are required. Why should a government rule over me that I have no say in? What gives them the right?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

i mean, look around you, can you name one single liberal democracy that's done well for itself after 08?and i mean done well economically and socially based on the liberal democratic system of government?

The UK for one. Fastest growing economy in the G7-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26935148

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25823217

So indeed while operating a liberal democratic system of government the UK's done pretty darn well. Compare that to say Russia who operates under a totally different system:
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/...kraine-crisis/

Which beyond this short term stuff, also suffers from massive issues:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...3956ea65f756e0

So really Liberal democracies are THE way to go economically speaking.

[sabaku_no_gaara]

What is that smell oh its more BS from Exarch

First: Your cited analysis of Athens is preposterously piss poor. Athens did not fail it was conquered by a massive Macedonian military machine and the system it enforced was less innovative, less just, less equitable and more corrupt. On balance no rational person would pick Macedonian, Roman or pre-democratic Athens as an option unless they were absolutely assured they would be in the 1% and that is a small club.

"In Athens, democracy disintegrated when the rich grew super-rich, refused to play by the rules and undermined the established system of government. "

Umm that is so fantastically untrue it made me snort coffee out my nose

OK Exarch so let's agree shall we you are citing Ancient history supposed analysis that is so bad it would get an F in any 100 level course taught by anyone with a two brain cells to rub together.

But even crap can have a grain of truth - usually corn - there is no doubt money and corporate personhood is becoming a real threat in the US as is a concentration of wealth. But of course there are reforms that can deal with that you might want to recall that back in the day say 1930 or so



You could count the number of democracies on what one hand
[/FONT][/COLOR]

He's not saying anything, he's posting a citation from a prof at the Oxford university

But you are being so quick to jump to ad hominem and discrediting the point he's trying to make that you even failed to notice that

And Roma Victrix, he's criticising the current system not advocating a return to feudalism, but hey ridicule is a handy argument when you have nothing real to say is it not

[conon394]

He's not saying anything, he's posting a citation from a prof at the Oxford university

But you are being so quick to jump to ad hominem and discrediting the point he's trying to make that you even failed to notice that

And Roma Victrix, he's criticising the current system not advocating a return to feudalism, but hey ridicule is a handy argument when you have nothing real to say is it not

No I am pointing out the analysis is incorrect. Athens did not fall via corruption or some internal rot it was conquered by a larger empire and the apathy of other Greek states. Before or after the democracy the polity of Athens was demonstrably less creative, had less equality, attracted less emigrants, and produced less wealth or social innovation. Stein Ringen is not a classical historian and while he does I would say correctly identify several of the things currently undermining the potential success of democracy in the UK and the US he is clearly misusing Athens and its history rather carelessly and incorrectly which undermines his credibility and anyone who cites him . Similarly Democracy has in within the last 200 years or so been reduced to a bare few examples and yet survived both Monarchy and Stalinist systems and Fascism and Dictatorship.

But you are being so quick to jump to ad hominem and discrediting the point he's trying to make that you even failed to notice that

I think Exarch can survive a bit of ad hominem since he likes to throw rocks... I generally assume he gets the same level of entertainment out the 'debate' as a bunch of semi drunk blokes do at a bar just the rest of us do who post in any thread he initiates. The fun is mostly being bombastic and insulting w/o attracting the wrath of the mods

[Roma_Victrix]

Democracy as a universal political system is fast becoming unviable, as discontent grows and the economy slows...

Yes, Exarch, people - including you - are sheep who must be ruled by a strongman, an autocrat who they will truly fear.

I declare democracy a failed experiment (that somehow has spread across the globe and is accepted by a majority of its governments)! We shall all return to the glorious state of monarchy. And I SHALL BE YOUR KING. You shall do your king's bidding or be beheaded.

I declare Exarch my court jester! He shall dance at my request. Your first order is to kneel and bow your head to me your sovereign lord, Exarch...



I SAID KNEEL!



Yeah, democracy doesn't look too bad now, does it?

It has its flaws, certainly (in its ability to be manipulated and produce some shoddy leadership from a misinformed electorate), but it's the least worst option amongst a grab bag of terrible ones.

I also second what Conon said about Athens, even with its apparent flaws like the mob rule aspect that led to the trial and death of Socrates. Some people who think they know something about history should probably just STFU and listen to a real historian on that matter. I'm rather shocked and awed that this Stein Ringen guy from the WaPo is an Emeritus Professor from anywhere, let alone Oxford.

For that matter, this all just strikes me as sensational journalism aimed at seeking attention over a non-issue (i.e. the supposed decline of democracy). In the States, the problem of allowing an elite plutocracy to bribe politicians via Citizens United is a major concern, but it does not signal the death of democracy.

[Simon Cashmere]

Democracy is the best failed system we've got, because people think they have a say so less revolution and disorder. They dont really, its an exercise in popular illusion. You dont get to choose which party candidates are put up for office, the parties choose. There isn't a better system though, and democracies generally tend to do better economically than dictatorships. But what has sunk modern western democracies is the age of entitlement, the free ride, and the bloated welfare state. That will bankrupt them, but you can easily have a modern democracy without the welfare state.

[Euphoric]

"Democracy is failing" is a blanket statement, Exarch.

[Venomousmonkey]

I always think of this quote when the subject of the issues of political/economical comes up.

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite" -Kenneth Galbraith.

The issue is that we always think we can do better otherwise. Sometimes that ends badly.

[Phier]

I always think of this quote when the subject of the issues of political/economical comes up.

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite" -Kenneth Galbraith.

Vapid and hipsteresque quote.

[Slydessertfox]

I cringe at the lack of actually understanding Athenian history from that article in the OP....

[Roma_Victrix]

LOL. If I had room in my signature, I would quickly stick that Galbraith quote in there. Thanks for sharing.

Democracy (in its various forms) is the lesser of many evils and thus the most preferable. That is all.

[sleepyx732]

I personally don't see what the hell is so great with democracy, but it's not like there is a better alternative. The world's economic woes are not a result of democracy.

[NotYetRegistered]

Nah, democracy is alright. Extrapolating on the other hand is a bit meh.

[Greymane]

Shouldn't this be in the Academy? Just saying...

Anyway, the thing with these kind of discussions is, that there isn't such a thing as 'democracy'.
The differences between democracies all over the world are numerous.
Just pick three: US, Russia and the Netherlands.
About the 2 party system in the US, a lot has been said already. In my opinion, the 'the winner takes it all system' is not very democratic as it is not a complete representatation of what the people voted for. The differences between the two leading parties are (from the perspective of a European) laughably small, especially when economics are concerned. Human rights is a slightly different matter.
Russia is in name a democracy, with power effectively held by Putin and co. This has both positive and negative aspects, but in conclusion: it's far from ideal.
Funny thing is that the Netherlands is not a democracy. It's a constitutional monarchy. Which is one of the problems I have with this professor you quoted in the OP: constitutional monarchies have existed for quite some time, but have gradually developed into what we have now in the Netherlands; the king has absolutely no effective power and for all intents and purposes, we are a democracy.
Both 'democracy' as we see in US and 'democracy' as observed in Russia are the product of revolutions with pretty different origins and outcomes. Even so, since their respective revolutions, both countries and their political systems have changed a lot. Democracy in the Netherlands has slight republican origins, but universal suffrage is only a century old here. Which is why it kind of irks me to see an acedemic professor talk about democracy as something universal and even something that (re)started in the US. His observations on Athens do not strike me as really intelligent either.
With him crediting democracy for everything good that happened in Athens, he essentially ignores the achievements of Egypt, Alexander's Macedon, Rome, etc, etc, etc.

Now with that out of the way, I agree with the gist of both articles. Democracy is essentially on the decline. For now. But as with the good stuff in Athens, you can't really attribute the bad stuff that happens now to democracy. It's just too simple. I would say that we do need reforms as it's way too easy to let money and other interests get in the way of representing the people in a parliamentary democracy. Just look at the various lobby's (the US' Israel lobby comes to mind) and at the fact that parties can suddenly completely change their policies on being elected (some would call that cooperation, I would call it dishonesty ).

The Economist's points about the EU are generally correct. It is pretty clear that EU policy does not mirror what the people in most of the European countries want (with the rise of populist parties as a logical result), if only because the interests of the European peoples as a whole cannot be represented accurately in such a political construct.
From reading various articles about Athenian democracy and on general history, it's become pretty clear that democracy (like all state forms) is something that needs to grow organically. The EU was just called into being at a certain time and has gone completely out of control since. The trade unions we had before that we superior in the sense that cooperation was ensured, but all states were free to make their own decisions. Europe is not ready for being the US of Europe. If you look at how the USA came into being, at this time, that is not really surprising.
Some would argue that the EU is just a vehicle for neo-liberalism, but I'm not so sure. That the rich have more power than the poor (and 'the people' in general) in the EU is pretty evident though...

I don't think democracy has failed/is failing, but merely that we need reforms and maybe a transition to a more direct democracy. The representative democracy we have in place is just too easy to manipulate if you have the right amount of money.