VIENNA, Austria, Jan 5 (IPS) – Think of our political systems not just as battlefields of passions, ideologies and economic interests, but as systematically functioning arrangements of interactions, similar to game theory. In recent decades we have witnessed the breakdown of large homogeneous groups into countless subgroups – a patchwork of minorities.
This fragmentation, exacerbated by individualization and the resulting weakening of strong political ties, has profound consequences for democratic governance.
In countries with majority voting systems, this process fragments the party system itself. As dissatisfaction with political parties grows – initially quiet but eventually pronounced – new parties emerge, further fragmenting the political landscape.
This increasing fragmentation complicates government formation and makes majorities more insecure. Often only coalitions are formed that can agree on the lowest common denominator. Consequently, the outcomes of politics do not necessarily improve; in most cases they worsen.
A vicious circle
Bold action, bold steps and clear leadership have become increasingly elusive. This reinforces the dissatisfaction and the prevailing feeling among voters that politicians are failing to achieve meaningful results. Doubts about the effectiveness of the political system are self-perpetuating, creating a situation in which decisive politics is virtually impossible.
The rise of populists and right-wing extremists is both a consequence of this stagnation and a further catalyst: a ratchet effect. Right-wing agitators stoke discontent and transform it into anger and outrage, while exploiting negative emotions.
As they grow stronger, democratic politics becomes more paralyzed, often preoccupied with defending against radicalism, preventing the worst outcomes, and building coalitions whose members can agree on little more than a lackluster commitment to “more of the same.”
When social cohesion erodes, the radical right gains ground – which then leads to even more division. The perceived polarization and alienation associated with the rise of right-wing extremism increases the perception of social disintegration and decline.
Democracy brings its own threats
In a sense, right-wing radicalism itself is the problem that it then complains about in the next cycle. It is the disintegration that she denounces. In this way, it contributes to the chain of evidence that reinforces authoritarian reflexes. Authoritarianism breeds authoritarianism.
These preconditions of political systems – fragmentation and the resulting weakness of action – lead the German democracy theorist Veith Selk to diagnose that modernization and social change are putting increasing pressure on democracy, making a turnaround unlikely.
This produces a rather depressing diagnosis of decline: democracy brings its own threats.
Moreover, globalization requires ‘global governance’, which, even under favorable conditions, has historically produced solutions at an unbearably slow pace and is now reaching its limits amid chaotic multilateralism.
Conversely, ‘de-globalization’ – through national power politics, tariffs and trade wars – provides no relief and instead creates new problems, such as the loss of markets, disrupted supply chains and a resulting decline in economic growth, potentially destroying entire economic sectors.
The growing crises in Europe
The emergencies of the future are already on the horizon. The climate catastrophe not only threatens our livelihoods, but also has tangible economic consequences. Crop failures due to drought and floods are already contributing to rising cost of living inflation, especially for fruit and vegetables.
This situation will certainly become much more serious. Even if successful, the socio-economic transformation will be costly. Insurance companies can face financial problems, asset portfolios can quickly lose value, and if we are unlucky, there can be a sudden ‘Minsky moment’ could trigger a downward spiral that could lead to a financial crisis.
The aging of the population is already putting pressure on public finances, with healthcare and care systems becoming increasingly expensive, pushing European welfare states to their limits.
Public debt is rising, and under current conditions it will be more challenging to ‘grow’ out of debt than in the past. Growth will be more difficult to mobilize, and austerity is not a viable alternative, because shrinkage strategies lead to serious consequences. It’s all about the prospects.
Here are a few highlights:
The German economy has been stagnant for six years and private investment remains weak. France faces a budget deficit of 5.8 percent and public debt of 113 percent of GDP as it slides from one government crisis to another. Political actors are unable to achieve a socially just change of course that would reconcile savings in the pension system with additional income from wealth taxes.
Austria was expected to run a budget deficit of six percent, prompting left-wing Keynesian Finance Minister Markus Marterbauer to put together a package of tightening measures to cut the deficit to 4.5 percent by 2025.
Ensuring that large fortunes contribute to costs through higher taxes is not only a matter of fairness, but also an economic necessity – yet almost everywhere there is a lack of parliamentary majorities for decisive action.
There is a growing desire among politicians to provide sensible solutions instead of getting bogged down in small details.
A whole panorama of emergencies unfolds before us. As noted earlier, most people in power have little energy or flexibility to think and act beyond day-to-day problems. This situation has tangible and psychopolitical consequences: citizens feel that things are deteriorating and that serious problems are looming, while at the same time they feel that those in power are only tinkering with the details.
For many, this leads to outright fear and a generally pessimistic mood, which in turn fuels the rise of right-wing radicals.
Above all, the political forces of the left and the conservative center must demonstrate their ability to act together. A few years ago, the prevailing view was that different political camps should dare to engage in more conflict to make democratic life more vibrant.
At that time there were complaints that everyone was crowding into the center and becoming interchangeable. Today, however, we find ourselves in a different situation.
There is a growing desire among politicians to provide sensible solutions rather than getting bogged down in small details or wasting time on pointless culture wars. The left may need to recognize that states are reaching their financial limits, while conservatives need to recognize that clientele politics, which guarantee free rides for the super-rich, are no longer viable.
Urgent problems require quick action, and all this comes at a high cost.
Rhetoric is no longer effective, and pandering to the far right leads nowhere. Conservatives especially need to understand this, because they sometimes give the impression that they view fascists as only slightly more radical conservatives (or conservatives as moderate fascists).
This perception is not only misleading; it also highlights a significant identity crisis within traditional conservatism. Fortunately, some are beginning to realize that authoritarianism is not a relative; it is the enemy. The best way to undermine this is to demonstrate a commitment to action.
Robert Misik is a writer and essayist. He publishes in many German-language newspapers and magazines, including Die Zeit and Die Tageszeitung.
This is from a joint publication by Social Europe and IPS Journal.
Source: International Politics and Society (IPS), Brussels, Belgium
IPS UN Office
© Inter Press Service (20260105182332) — All rights reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service
#democracy #freezes #autocrats #rise