Democracy and wishful thinking

With liberal democracy intended to limit the power of elites and respect individual rights, thus providing legitimate opportunity for interest groups to influence public opinion to help balance economic and social policy considerations, should we fear recent pessimism.

For example, the ABC’s Stan Grant on 2 January 2022, having noted that the United States (US) has for several decades experienced increasing inequality, a loss of faith in Washington politics, racial division and a partisan media, also suggests that Australia now faces “worrying signs” because of the “increasingly toxic influence of social media” through “flames of anti-democratic identity politics that erode a shared sense of citizenship”.

But the situation facing liberal democracies deserves further explanation in line with the reality that a perfect liberal democracy has never existed and probably never will in this competitive world struggling for resources and the influence of certain ideas.

As noted by Pew Research, an ongoing lack of confidence in many liberal democracies since the global financial crisis has resulted in economic pessimism that feeds “dissatisfaction with the way democracy is working and weakens commitment to democratic values”, pessimism not helped by the recent COVID pandemic-driven global downturn.

Hence, while a 2019 survey of 34 nations found majority agreement that voting gives ordinary people some say about how the government runs things, in line with 2017 polling of 38 nations that found overwhelming support for “a democratic system where representatives elected by citizens decide what becomes law”, a 2021 survey of 17 advanced economies found that a median of 56 per cent wanted major change or complete reform for their political systems, including two-thirds or more in Italy, Spain, the US, South Korea, Greece, France, Belgium and Japan.

The reality is that many people do not always support democratic means, especially in poorer nations, with the 2017 survey of 38 countries also finding that a median of 26 per cent supported “a system in which a strong leader can make decisions without interference from parliament or the courts”, along with a median of 24 per cent considering “a system in which the military rules the country” (including 17 per cent in the US, Italy and France).

Whereas many liberal democracies overcame the struggle between democracy, communism and fascism that occurred prior to the Second World War, promoting voting rights, social welfare and the public regulation of corporations, the importance of economic fortune has remained crucial to all liberal democracies seeking to balance national aspirations and market demands in the face of ongoing economic globalisation and technological improvements.  

When we take account of the important relationship between wealth creation, social wellbeing and even domestic generosity, the history of all liberal democracies has included divisive debate which often means that many issues take time or may never be resolved.

Of Australia’s liberal democratic experience, it took many decades during the 20^th century before Aboriginals were given citizen and land rights, ongoing division remains between those on the left and right over the extent of social welfare spending and appropriate taxation and labour market policies, and Australians are still discussing whether dramatic action is needed to address rising greenhouse gas emissions despite hearing about the issue since the 1990s.

But here we are in the 21^st century, and Australia’s relatively prosperous liberal democracy faces much tougher times as authoritarian China uses its growing economic might to impose sanctions on Australian exports to remind the western world (and others) how determined the Chinese Communist Party is to promote its authoritarian influence around the world, and to prevent peoples everywhere from speaking out against anti-democratic practices.    

In this competitive world, the question has become how willing are the liberal democracies to uphold their commitment to related freedoms to help balance economic and social policy considerations, yet lose further economic share to rogue nations that have little regard for democratic norms with thousands of Chinese alone being removedfrom their everyday lives each year for simply speaking their minds about important life issues and current affairs.

While Grant speaks of the US as a poor liberal democratic example, even though the stability and prosperity of most liberal democracies (including Australia) has depended greatly on US military might for many decades, it is the US which leads the resistance against authoritarian and mercantile China influence.

Of course, the US, as the most powerful democracy, does have immense cleavages to overcome with a median of 89 per cent across the other 16 advanced economies in 2021 noting that racial/ethnic discrimination alone was a major challenge for US society with only a median of just 17 per cent considering American democracy to be a good model for other countries to follow.

While growing economic inequality in the US still affects blacks most, the current situation provides an opportunity for political leadership to address dissatisfaction about growing inequality, as the need to maintain a strong middle class is crucial given that a greater income share by the rich and the poor means that “the wealthy can exert disproportionate influence on public policy because economic resources can be translated into political power”.

However, although one view argues that Trump’s tax and economic reforms addressed inequality by improving the situation of low-income black workers most, the rise of Trump did successfully exploit views that Washington policy elites were corrupt, most media sources were fake, greater national protection was needed to address the economy and immigration, and conservative cultural messages on religion, abortion and gay rights needed to be promoted.

Although support for Trump’s divisive approach remains influential within Republic circles, this does not necessarily mean that US liberal democracy will implode.

While the separation of powers in the US political system makes legislation difficult to achieve, certainly much harder than the Australia’s federal political system which has achieved a much fairer economic-social policy mix over many decades, it still provides an important constraint on any populist leader hell-bent on eroding institutions for the sake of power.  

Despite recent fears about a conservative dominated Supreme Court, with three judges appointed by President Trump, it refused Trump’s bid to block the release of White House records concerning the 6 January 2021 attack on the Capitol and the disruption of the certification of the 2020 electoral count, as any confidentiality of internal White House communications was outweighed by the need for full accountability.  

However, in line with the reality that all people have a right to express and promote their views, reflecting their rights within a legitimate and progressive liberal democracy, the US may change its mind on difficult questions.

While the conservative dominated Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay, lesbian, and transgender employees from discrimination based on sex, it may overturn Roe v. Wade during 2022 to allow states to set their own abortion rules, thus reversing nearly 50 years of legal precedent which gave pregnant women greater liberty to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.  

No one really knows how policy trends in any liberal democracy will play out, as the US experience highlights.  

In agreement with those who warnof another major stock market crash occurring given the current bubble, after years of governments promoting very low interest rates to encourage spending (now with higher inflation), it remains to be seen to what extent domestic attitudes implode in the face of another major economic recession should it occur.

With future economic turmoil, issues relating to freedoms and policy outcomes will affect all societies in some form, including the affluent liberal democracies as their people retain the freedom to support different policy ideas and many may again embrace shared language, customs, and history to again urge change.

That is just how the world is, and any discussion of a supposed decline of advanced liberal democracies should reflect the related policy difficulties that face any nation, never mind the poorer nations with far fewer resources who will always be much more vulnerable to the appeal and dominance of elites and authoritarianism.