How can we defend our democracies from those who want to destroy them? There is much talk about strategies to keep illiberal and nationalist populists out of power, but Donald Trump’s daily use of the wrecking ball shows how important it is also to strengthen democracy so that it can withstand a period of populists in power.
Germany has a concept called wehrhafte Demokratiewhich many translate as “militant democracy”, but which, in reality, means a democracy capable of defending itself. Following this slogan, in Germany there are those who propose to ban the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, one of the most popular in the country. It would be a mistake that would only serve to strengthen its supporters’ belief that the democratic state is some kind of liberal elitist conspiracy and would turn the AfD into a martyr. France’s “republican arc” experiment – in which there is only one thing that virtually all parties agree on, namely keeping Marine Le Pen’s National Rally on the sidelines – is clearly proving counterproductive. Logically, such a wide variety of parties do not agree on the most urgent reforms, and RN can continue to criticize from the outside. It is therefore worth focusing on the example of the Netherlands, where the party of populist Geert Wilders managed to come to power in a coalition government. When he didn’t get what his voters expected, he withdrew from the coalition, dragging the government towards collapse, and lost the next election (albeit by a narrow margin) to a Liberal party led by the young and dynamic Rob Jetten.
Now, if we want to run the risk of letting populists take power, we must first strengthen the defense mechanisms of our democracy; Otherwise, they will use it against itself, to dismantle it – as Viktor Orbán did in Hungary and as Trump is trying to do in the United States – and, step by step, previously stable democracies will become what political scientists call an authoritarian electoral system. I mean, there are still elections, but they are neither free nor fair.
Here are some issues we need to take into account to protect our democracy from populism.
Proportional representation
A two-party winner-takes-all system, like that of the United States – and essentially still that of the United Kingdom at Westminster, despite the recent fragmentation of its political landscape – may be useful until a nationalist populist takes over one of the two major parties, as Trump has done. So the system is worse. It is better to have proportional representation, so that populists are limited by their coalition partners, as is the case in the Netherlands and much of continental Europe.
An electoral body
It may seem a little bizarre, but this aspect is important. America’s absurdly archaic system, in which each of the 50 states has different procedures, is a constant invitation to partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression and all the other tricks that Republicans are clearly willing to employ ahead of next fall’s midterm elections.
Public service vehicles
The common public sphere necessary for democracy is eroding everywhere due to the simultaneous fragmentation and polarization resulting from America’s capitalist version of the digital revolution. There aren’t many easy solutions. However, countries that have a reliable public network, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany or the Scandinavian countries, must maintain it with all their might, further protect their editorial independence, double their budget and increase their presence on social networks. The fact that the UK is doing exactly the opposite, undermining the BBC – arguably the most respected public broadcaster in the world – is just another example of this country’s seemingly endless capacity to do itself harm.
Media ownership
Censorship is out of fashion. Today’s authoritarians control speech through property. In Türkiye and Hungary, oligarchs friends of the leaders own the most important media. At first glance it may seem like perfect media pluralism, but behind the mask the reality is totally different. In this regard it is almost impossible to formulate a general rule. Foreign ownership, for example, has been a curse for British newspapers (think Rupert Murdoch), but in some post-communist countries it has helped defend democracy (the Polish television network TVN, for example). Every case is different.
Independent judiciary
This is obvious, but it is fundamental. The current judicial chaos in Poland, where the ruling coalition is arguing over the legitimacy of judges appointed by the previous populist government, shows what happens when the rule of law is lost. A disastrous incident recently occurred in Germany in which the candidacy of a left-liberal jurist for a seat on the Constitutional Court, already approved by all parties in the corresponding parliamentary commission, was ruined by the rejection of a group of rebellious conservatives. This is exactly the sort of thing – like attacks on the BBC – that should not be done when the threat of populists looms. The UK Supreme Court, unlike that of the US, retains its reputation for impartiality. But when the head of the opposition Justice Department, Robert Jenrick, waves a judge’s wig before his party conference to denounce left-wing activist judges, it is clear that the Trumpist threat is not far away.
Neutrality of the civil administration
In the United States, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, of which the Trump administration applies many of the principles, explicitly recommends the direct subordination of the administrative state to the executive one. Most worryingly, perhaps, this subordination is already observed at the Department of Justice, where hundreds of officials were fired or resigned and, then, Trump’s most critical figures, such as John Bolton, James Comey and Letitia James, began to be persecuted.
constitutional monarchy
Does this sound ridiculous? Well, when Yascha Mounk asked him in his podcasts The good fight to the eminent American specialist in comparative constitutionalism Tom Ginsburg on how best to defend liberal democracies, interestingly he emphasized the advantages of having a constitutional monarchy. Anti-liberal populists always presume to speak on behalf of the nation, but if there is a constitutional monarch who is the undisputed and impartial supreme representative of that nation, the space is already occupied, at least in part. I’m not suggesting that the United States bring back any of George III’s heirs (although there is a member of the British royal family living in Los Angeles), but if a country has a constitutional monarchy, like the United Kingdom, Sweden, or the Netherlands, it should keep it, because, paradoxical as it may seem, it is in practice a bastion of democracy.
I could mention many other areas, such as the security services, the army, universities and the incestuous and neogarchic relationships between big capital and politics. In all cases, the specific solution for each country will be different and none of them will be easy. It is useful to have detailed provisions in a Constitution that is difficult to amend, but what James Madison says Federalist documents: n. 48memorably called “parchment barriers” is no guarantee. We, the people, must be the ones to mobilize to protect democracy. When I was in Prague last month, my Czech friends were preparing to defend public television and radio and take to the streets if necessary.
Because what is painfully clear is that when any of these essential checks and balances are lost it is very difficult to restore them. Destroying is much easier than building. Just look at the mess Poland is in today and the United States will be in tomorrow. In liberal democracy, as in healthcare, prevention is better than cure.
