Democracy has, at best, just a mid-life crisis

You can laugh at the misery. With that feeling, I read the political scientist David Runcimans ”How democracy ends”, one of last year's most acclaimed books in the british non-fiction. With the light pen goes Runciman objectively through how democracy could end: coups, disasters, technical development, or that we find something better.

the Choice of Donald Trump is the väljarmässiga the equivalent to buying a Harley-Davidson-motorcycle for his collected pension pot.

The most poignant observations is one of the book's great merits. They show, among other things, how the next EU-election-pairs – president of the French republic Emmanuel Macron, and the prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán – illustrate the two sides of european democracy crisis.

the probability of a violent coup is small in the ageing western countries with a stable democracy, but the growing discontent and economic inequality are major problems. Our tired democracy is undergoing something of a midlife crisis, and it can take a enough so worrisome expression.

Brexit is the divorce and Emmanuel Macron, the attractive new partner, who tempts, when voters get tired of their old.

On the choice of Donald Trump is the väljarmässiga the equivalent to buying a Harley Davidson motorcycle for his collected pension pot, so is the Brexit divorce and Emmanuel Macron, the attractive new partner, who tempts, when voters get tired of their old. The result has in both cases been more excitement than charter, just as requested, although maybe still not as intended.

Conspiracy theories, for example, has always been a consolation for the losing factions in a living democracy. Now think also the political winners on them, one of the factors contributing to the vast majority feel themselves as losers.

at the same time, how countries without the same democratic charter in economically troubled times attracted by populismens options. Liberal democracy promises the dignity of the human person, through individual freedom and the right to vote, and collective benefits, through the stability and growing economy. Populism promises, on the contrary, collective dignity and personal benefits, strong leaders skrävlar if ”the people” and use the state to reward his cronies and supporters. For those who are lacking in personal ambition, hope, or patience, can the deal be good enough.

Populism promises, on the contrary, collective dignity and personal benefits, strong leaders skrävlar if ”the people” and use the state to reward his cronies and supporters.

To point out populismens disadvantages are an insufficient strategy to deal with it. The challenge is, on the contrary, to dare to ignore the will of the populists and the pay force for democracy double strength: the individual's freedom, dignity and responsibility, as well as the long-term benefits that grow out of such a scheme. The most important is to look forward. To try to save something lost is biased, reminds Runciman, it is a struggle against enemies and traitors. To try something new is, however, an experience we can share.