created by aitneux on 21/02/2025 at 00:06 UTC
1048 upvotes, 161 top-level comments (showing 25)
It feels like voters are using democratic systems to chip away at democracy itself with electing almost antidemocratic leaders. Are we seeing a global shift away from democratic ideals like monarchies faded out centuries ago, or is this just a phase? What’s your take, where do you see it heading?
Comment by AutoModerator at 21/02/2025 at 00:06 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to r/TrueAskReddit. Remember that this subreddit is aimed at high quality discussion, so please elaborate on your answer as much as you can and avoid off-topic or jokey answers as per subreddit rules[1].
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/about/sidebar
2: /message/compose/?to=/r/TrueAskReddit
Comment by Correct_Cupcake_5493 at 21/02/2025 at 00:12 UTC
513 upvotes, 33 direct replies
Corporate capitalism needs to constantly expand its profits, which eventually drives down wages and quality of life, leading more people to be susceptible to authoritarian rhetoric, which itself is promoted by the rich as the solution to the problems their own austerity policies cause.
Comment by lastmonk at 21/02/2025 at 01:01 UTC
69 upvotes, 5 direct replies
It's wealth inequality and the failure of neoliberalism to address corruption.
In the United States, which I'm more familiar with , it's an easy to track series of erosions in the functions of politicians and the systematic destruction of working class organization that Reagan brought about. Individual congressmen and senators spend the majority of their time fundraising. They literally have a call center across the street since they can't do it in the congressional building. When we deemed corporations are people and money is speech we effectively legalized bribery and neither party will address it because it's how individual politicians get rich during or after their terms and it's easy to argue that it's a bad idea strategically to swear off campaign cash when the other side definitely won't.
A pretty well known Princeton study detailed here: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba
Shows no correlation between public sentiment and congressional action. These aren't principled representatives doing what they think is right, they're mercenaries looking to earn the most campaign cash since in the House 90%+ of elections and in the Senate 80%+ of elections are won by the larger campaign spend. (https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-spending[1])
1: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-spending
Comment by Saoshant at 21/02/2025 at 05:54 UTC
12 upvotes, 1 direct replies
If you want to paint history with a broad brush, societies tend to go through cycles of action, reaction, action, reaction. They open, then close, and so on. In the action/open side societies tend to be more liberal, more focused on the arts, more extroverted and xenophiliac, whereas the reactionary, closed society is more conservative, focused on hard economics and power dynamics, more introverted and xenophobic. China is an excellent example of this actually with the Tang Dynasty and its collapse into the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period. Again, this is painting with a broad brush, but often there's a disconnect between leadership and the common people, between the rich and the poor, which leads to mounting societal pressures, and as those societal pressures become straining on everyday life, people will collectively move inwards and become more conservative as they view the current direction as 'not working' and liberal thought as a wing of the powerful, or vice versa, leading to the exchange from one side to the other. In modern Democracies we can observe this process happening in miniature on a much shorter scale. The truth isn't really important, mind, perception is, given that humans have a very limited ability to understand and categorically think through very large scale topics like macro-economics without extensively devoting time to it.
That said, I don't see where we are now as being at that point quite yet (on the larger scale, obviously on the shorter scale we're in a reactionary period). The definition of liberal and conservative has shifted a great deal over time in terms of what that means, and some historical cultures had a much more 'liberal' take on some topics than modern society while conservatism on the whole has moved steadily to the left over the course of the long span of history in regards to many social and governmental aspects. Modern western society is certainly not invincible or immune to these shifts by any means, nor do I expect that democracy will somehow last forever, but what it turns into is up in the air. The march of technology leaves a lot of possibilities open about the shape society will one day take, and I think it's too early to tell where we're likely to be based on one four year span or even one decade. People and institutions are often more fragile than people think in times of strength, but by that same token, are often more resilient than people think in times of strife.
This probably isn't the sort of answer you're looking since you're talking about the specific circumstances of current government, but I say that because I don't really find that sort of speculation especially useful. It's the sort of thing that just adds stress to your life that there's no way to do anything with. If you're concerned about the state of the country, work with your local political groups, whatever they may be and whatever supports what you think the answer is, and organize. If you're not willing to do that, then worrying about the direction of the country isn't going to do you much good.
Comment by ComfortableCable1412 at 21/02/2025 at 16:37 UTC
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
It's a complex socio-economic issue, but people tend to side with authoritarians when they feel weak or helpless. Authoritarians appear to be strong and put on the perception of "The more power I have, the more I can fight for you!"
- CEO compensation and pay scales are out of control. The top 1% is overcompensated, while the middle class is undercompensated. This errodd the middle class.
- Billionaires have set up "money pumps" into the economy, exploiting flaws in Capitalism that allow a spiderweb of chains to syphon resources to one person. This is why 3 people in the US currently have more wealth than the bottom 50% of wage earners put together.
- Paying top earners in stocks has broken the economy. Doing this allows an individual to declare wealth based on stock ownership (tax-free), take out low interest loans on those stocks (tax-free), and pay 6% interest on a stock that increases in value by 15%. This allows the ultra-rich to skip out of nearly $400B in taxes every year.
- The excess money companies bring it was previously distributed down to workers, creating a very strong middle class. This is why anyone that worked a full time job used to be able to buy/rent a house, own a car, and raise a family on a single paycheck. They also used to have company funded pensions that paid you after you retired, and you received full health coverage.
- In the 1980s, Reagan passed a series of economic experiments leading to "trickle-down economics." This is the theory that decreasing tax burdens on job creators, and deregulating stocks would be passed down to employees because companies wouldn't just keep any extra money they received. In reality, this lead to a change to employee funded 401K retirement plans, watering down health coverage, and stagnation of wages.
- The middle class can no longer afford to live as they once did. They're feeling powerless, helpless, and weak. Along comes a rich person that says "YOU FEEL POWERLESS BECAUSE OF THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE! THEY'RE THE CAUSE OF ALL YOUR WORRIES!"
- A face is put on your enemy, you start hating this enemy, and you follow this knight that is fighting the proclaimed dragons. Authoritarianism is now accepted because that person is claiming to fix your problems in your name, and you've been convinced it's the only way.
Every year Trump comes out with a new dragon to slay, and these dragons are causing all of your problems at the time:
- Democrats
- Critical Race Theory
- Muslims
- Gangs
- Wokeness
- Immigrants
- "Deep State"
- Anyone that says anything bad about him
Comment by shitposts_over_9000 at 21/02/2025 at 02:34 UTC
13 upvotes, 1 direct replies
this question is difficult to use specific examples for because there is almost always a group that would label any given leader as authoritarian unless they were doing nothing.
in the classic political compass the libertarian center-left is about the only position that ever gets away with doing literally nothing. the libertarian center-right might get the same treatment but they are the voters much more than the politicians.
the authoritarian left or right is labeled authoritarian by the opposite hand of the compass. the far ends of either flavor of libertarian gets labeled that way incorrectly when their policies are being heavily criticized as authoritarian is often used incorrectly against any policy that has extreme side effects.
having said that, there are a few common threads worldwide:
Across any population there is a window of what people will tolerate. that window moves slowly, over generations, but any attempt to move it faster leads inevitably to a significant rebound when the parties trying to force whatever they are pushing are finally removed from power.
Democracy only scales well when there is enough commonality within the voter base. One of the distinct advantages of the American style system is that is heavily segregates the voter base for everything except for the president and even that is heavily influenced by the individual states. A lot of countries do not have this level of local rule so you get things like farm laws that make no sense and massive protests by farmers. (to be fair, California has this also) some countries have almost none of this then you end up with issues like the 2014 Donbas conflict
It also fails to scale when you have too many isolationist communities within your voting region with no clear overwhelming majority and all the factions are voting against each other.
Many countries are in their second decade of some group heavily trying to push the window and at least a decade into importing or expending contrary isolationist communities so you have a lot of push back combined with a lot of voting chaos.
Specifically in western nations you also have the left being in control of the majority of popular media while simultaneously being a very fragile coalition of groups that actually are in contention to each other, so not only do you have wide popular coverage of anything from the right from the left's point of view but there are currently a LOT of easy ways to split the left's vote.
Some actual authoritarians are taking advantage of that, for more often it is just regular opposition but with terribly one-sided media coverage.
"authoritarian" has gotten it's meaning diluted in recent years. very few elected leaders are cancelling elections or making drastic changes to freedoms that have existed longer the living memory, there are a few, but they are also the same people calling others authoritarian right now
Comment by JC_Hysteria at 21/02/2025 at 00:19 UTC
19 upvotes, 4 direct replies
Lots of cycles…big ones, small ones. The pendulum swings on what’s considered ideal, and it often swings back in equal force.
Empires rise and fall and the world order constantly changes.
“Democracy” is only ~2.5k years old. Our systems will continue to evolve alongside what’s considered pragmatic means of survival…or, we’ll have a conflict we cannot overcome on a large scale (which has also happened before).
Comment by Cathousechicken at 21/02/2025 at 16:46 UTC
3 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Global warming is also contributing to the trend. Climate change causes conflict indirectly in various ways, such as driving wealth inequality and causing large population movements of people. In addition, there are always people willing to take advantage of tragedies caused by global warming.
This significantly affects the risk of armed conflict. People become more scared. Scared people area more likely to vote authoritarian.
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/climate-change-causes-conflict-how-policy-can-respond#:~:text=Our%20main%20estimates%20imply%20an,in%20climate%20expected%20by%202050[1].
https://unfccc.int/news/conflict-and-climate
https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/climate-and-conflict[2].
2: https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/climate-and-conflict
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2019/06/climate-change-cause-armed-conflict
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/does-climate-change-cause-conflict/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4622275/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494411000752
https://grist.org/politics/authoritarian-democracy-climate-change-global-warming-causation-research/
https://www.ciwem.org/the-environment/political-storms-climate-change-and-a-new-age-of-dictators
https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asap.12347
Comment by adeeperlook11 at 23/02/2025 at 23:47 UTC*
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Comment by ActualDW at 21/02/2025 at 02:07 UTC
7 upvotes, 0 direct replies
When people feel insecure about their future, they tend to vote for stronger, less centrist figures.
It’s normal…nothing is static…eventually either their concerns are addressed or cities burn…and the cycle starts over again…
Comment by NotGreatToys at 21/02/2025 at 00:56 UTC
16 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Right-wing propaganda over the years has created a cancer with a base that has zero clue what's going on, so they're self-destructing and doing the exact thing that they're worried that others are doing - destroying their own country.
Comment by Fryckie at 21/02/2025 at 02:06 UTC
6 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Democracy is mob rule where 51% of the population gets to decide the fate of the 49%.
Those elected have power and those who want power run for office.
Politicians will say and do whatever it takes to convince 51% of the population that they will help them.
Once they get in power they do what they really want and unless the people rise up to overthrow the politicians, the politicians will get away with it.
Politicians know this and try to make it harder for the people to rise up and overthrow them. Gun control comes to mind.
Without the ability to overthrow the politicians, politicians can do whatever they want unchecked.
Comment by PaxNova at 21/02/2025 at 04:50 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
One of the basic tenets of liberal democracy is the separation of powers. This means you need broad support to get things done. This also means that contentious issues don't really get a government solution. People eventually decide to consolidate power in order to get their agendas going.
Personally, I think the gridlock is more a feature than a bug, but I know others think differently.
Comment by SomeSamples at 21/02/2025 at 05:34 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Because those fuckers and those the enable them are working tirelessly to take power and control. Democracies work when the populace understands the principle of government and take interest in it. These days people have other stuff to do and couldn't care less about being involved in their democratic system.
Comment by Current-Lynx-3547 at 21/02/2025 at 08:04 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Because the average Joes life is getting worse. So they will elect a different party to he usual even if its risky.
Why would you give a fuck if your life already sucks. At least flipping the table means you have a chance of coming out in a better position.
You get a passionate party leader. Who mentions all the issues you are facing and claims they I'll fix it.
Doesn't take much else to get a vote.
If anything it's a failure of the left to attract the average Joe. They should be voting for them but if they feel like the party is against them. Well fuck that party am I right?
The countries I have seen where the left has failed have all had leaders who would t look out of place as CEOs of a paper mill. They are bland with fake smiles and expensive suits. They are interchangable. We have had decades of "progress" and people are feeling worse off.
So why would they keep voting for the same vampires.
Comment by iamcleek at 21/02/2025 at 12:22 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
mass immigration, wars, a pandemic, etc.. a bunch of things have put people on edge about the state of the world. and when that happens, people always try to find certainty.
and the right *always* promises certainty and stability.
once things start to stabilize, people will feel less fearful and will open up to new things. that's where the left wins.
repeat since the dawn of time.
Comment by boonies1414 at 21/02/2025 at 13:51 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
As an American, it’s just corruption plain and simple. FBI lies to FISA courts, IRS targets people based on political beliefs, Congress exempt from insider trading laws, FEMA sorting disaster victims by yard signs, NSA/CIA spying on citizens, and on and on. Every possible facet of our federal government is corrupt and rotten
Comment by Temp_acct2024 at 21/02/2025 at 15:27 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
In times of peace, people become less involved in government and are ill informed. They become easily brainwashed by things they hear that appeal to their biases. Some people are afraid so when they hear bad things, it makes them fearful of consequences and that leads to anger and they just desire a “strong” leader to take charge and get rid of that perceived threat for them. This leads them to vote for a dictator. I’ve come to the realization that the more timid a person is, the more they need an authoritarian leader to tell them what to do. If they are only following orders then they feel okay but if they have to make decisions for themselves, they are uncomfortable and afraid. You’ll see this trait in most conservatives. The fear and short temper. I’ve also noticed that they like to poke fun at others for some reason. I guess it’s part of making themselves feel better.
Comment by BioAnagram at 21/02/2025 at 15:34 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
People are grasping at straws, so politics are very volatile right now.
The basic observed dynamic is: center-left not solving problems adequately --> opposition makes bombastic promises about tearing down the system and reform -->voters swing to opposition --> opposition attempts destructive shake up of the system coupled with culture war silliness intended to motivate their base --> predictable disaster and voter backlash --> center left back in charge --> back to status quo/problems still not getting fixed --> voters swing back to opposition again.
It's basically a shell game because no-one has any clue how to fix - or even make serious progress regarding - the serious, systemic issues plaguing these countries.
The post-truth, authoritarians are a serious problem themselves; however, the center left are also a big problem because they are not trying very hard to offer anything beyond incremental solutions. In addition, they fail to strengthen democratic systems when they are in charge because the powers which the authoritarians have gained by eroding democratic systems also benefit the centrists when they are in control.
Voters are voting out democracy because democracy is not offering a solution. We may see a rise in authoritarianism but we also may see entirely new political systems evolve from this. Basically, we are living in interesting times and it is likely to get a lot worse over time.
Comment by Invictus53 at 21/02/2025 at 15:52 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Generally people become more conservative and tribal as the world around them becomes more unstable or is going through rapid changes. Large scale Immigration, rapidly changing social values, economic decline and instability, foreign wars getting too close to home. It’s a perfect recipe for a right wing swing.
Comment by MisanthOptics at 21/02/2025 at 16:18 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The world is becoming increasingly complex. But people yearn for easy answers to explain their plight. Unscrupulous authoritarians are willing to supply easy (albeit untruthful) answers and reassure the voters that they should be angry at those trying to make things complicated. That wins votes.
Comment by WoopsieDaisies123 at 21/02/2025 at 17:15 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Because the assholes of the world are willing to lie and say whatever the scared morons of the world want to hear.
I’m not entirely sure where it’s heading, but I know it’s not going to be good. If humanity does survive climate change, it’s going to be the worst of us: the rich in their bunkers, and those on the surface who were violent enough to take the food and rapidly shrinking habitable areas.
Comment by GastonsChin at 21/02/2025 at 18:33 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
It seems odd, but the answer is actually climate change.
Essential resources are becoming scarce in parts of the world due to the changing climate. This causes governments to become more authoritarian in order to control those resources.
As the consequences of climate change are becoming more and more inevitable, the elite are planning for their survival and comfort at the cost of everyone else's lives.
Democracy isn't in a self-destruct mode.
Humanity is.
Comment by Crafty-Flower at 21/02/2025 at 20:40 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The population isn’t ready to confront the realities of climate collapse and techno-capitalism, so they stick their heads in the sand. It’s pretty obvious.
We can point to other statistics about voting, media, etc, but this is the meganarrative driving everything else.
Comment by LuxFaeWilds at 21/02/2025 at 21:23 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Conservatism is about preserving the social hierarchy where the rich are on top
Centrism is about maintaining the current system and pretending everything is fine
Everything leads to wealth inequality.
The far right says we can resolve all the problems caused by the system by hurting some groups of people and giving the rich even more wealth.
The left gives answers that would help the nation as a whole, but involves difficult feelings like "its actually cheaper to give homeless people homes than keep them homeless" and "minorities are people too"
Alot of people would rather just go with hurting people/easy sounding solutions.