Social scientists did not see it coming, but today democracy is clearly in danger in the United States of America. This is openly and honestly acknowledged by Adam Przeworski, one of the most prestigious political scientists, who for most of his career had forecast the stability and good health of democratic systems, especially in wealthy societies with a tradition of respecting the peaceful transfer of power. In a recent contribution, he acknowledges that he was wrong about the United States, but still considers it a “black swan,” insisting that democracy is surviving in many other places.
Other examples of complacency about the health of democratic systems include Acemoglu and Robinson’s famous 2012 book, Why Nations Fail, in which they presented the United States and the United Kingdom as examples of countries whose institutions should be emulated in order to preserve inclusive societies. Similarly, in Iversen and Soskice’s 2019 Democracy and Prosperity, they were still arguing that, despite the difficulties, advanced capitalist democracies would survive mainly because of the political support of an aspirational middle class. Today, one of these authors, Daron Acemoglu, is more pessimistic, as he makes clear in his new book, What Happened to Liberal Democracy.
I still believe that the democratic backlash can be stopped, but doing so will require more and better social science at the highest levels. It will also require acknowledging that democracy is not only in danger in the United States. Today, several Latin American countries are ruled by followers of Donald Trump, who receive direct political and financial support from the current US administration. This administration has also clearly and officially stated that its “national security” strategy includes supporting “patriotic” parties in Europe, meaning far-right, xenophobic parties such as those threatening the democratic future of the European Union in France, Germany, Spain and Italy, and, now outside the EU, the United Kingdom.
There is a direct link between disruptive national populism and threats to democracy. The success of insurgent political movements is due in part to their promise of “commitments,” as Italian scholar Massimo Morelli calls them: a promise to implement shocking policies—such as the deportation of immigrants, arbitrary tariffs, or anti-science measures—in a transparent and straightforward manner. Such policies usually require the removal of checks and balances. And this happens in a dynamically self-reinforcing way: causing economic pain generates more fear and distrust, which in turn increases support for such disastrous policies, creating pressure for the further removal of checks and balances. The process can continue until the seemingly civilised, if heterodox, conservative leader initially supported by business leaders becomes a monster like Nayib Bukele in El Salvador.
The vicious circle can be stopped, but it is easier to do so at the beginning, before we have sold these “promising” leaders to the public as benevolent figures. There was a recent article in The New York Times, for example, that portrayed in relatively benign terms an emerging xenophobic leader in Catalonia, expressing surprise that a Catalan nationalist could share the same discriminatory ideas as the AfD in Germany or the National Front in France. According to the author, the surprise stems from the progressive past of Catalan nationalism.
Well, no. Although Catalan nationalism contains a progressive branch—and one that is not free of contradictions—it has also contained conservative, reactionary and fascist components, both in the past and today. It is no coincidence that the Catalan bourgeoisie was divided, to put it generously, between those who supported Franco’s fascist dictatorship and those who opposed it.
No comments:
Post a Comment