If the results of the Polish elections teach us anything, it is this: the decline of democracy that so many people in Europe fear is not inevitable.
At a conference in Prague on Monday, attended by many Central and Eastern European politicians, analysts and policymakers, some made fun of the fact that Poland’s ruling party PiS is now “probably busy shredding as many documents and evidence as possible.” to erase traces of abuse of power and the erosion of democratic institutions. In the corridors, the relief at the end of PiS rule was almost palpable. As if someone had suddenly opened the windows. Many agreed that they had been pessimistic. That they thought Donald Tusk wouldn’t make it. He was “yesterday’s man”. The PiS had portrayed Tusk as a traitor and promised citizens benefits in exchange for votes. And isn’t the entire region sliding towards autocracy? Look at Hungary. Look at Slovakia, where the corrupt populist Robert Fico recently won the elections.
All true. But the sober observation is: we are quite defeatist in Europe. We overestimate the appeal of anti-democratic parties and politicians, and underestimate the effectiveness of democratic parties and politicians. We naturally assume that voters are extra susceptible to extremist, anti-democratic rhetoric in times when things are not going well. And that this can lead to democratic decline. But that’s not necessary at all. Certainly not if other parties and politicians remain firmly in the middle and defend democracy. read Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times by the American political scientist Nancy Bermeo, affiliated with the University of Oxford. This book, from 2003, is a fascinating study of almost twenty democracies at the end of the twentieth century. Her conclusion: most people are not at all susceptible to anti-democratic ideas. Not even during economic crises or periods of political instability and uncertainty.
Ordinary citizens vote for populists with radical solutions because they want a better life, Bermeo writes, not because they want to get rid of democracy. The fact that anti-democratic parties sometimes win elections is mainly due to something else: the absence of democratic parties and politicians with ‘distancing capacity’. By this she means parties that reject anti-democratic behavior or violence and condemn political extremism. In her view, ordinary citizens are more loyal to democracy than many people think.
Poland illustrates this. The PiS did not come to power because it promised to crush democracy and citizens who thought that was a good idea then voted for that party. No, the party promoted a conservative ideology that appealed to voters – for lack of a better alternative. The curtailment of the judiciary and the media, and the implementation of changes in the electoral system favorable to the PiS, began (as in Hungary) only when the party was in power. Voters tolerated this for a while, not because they are antidemocratic, but because they considered other things more important and because other parties were willing to enter into coalitions with the PiS.
That has stopped: citizens think it has gone too far, and other parties are giving the PiS more headwind. The PiS remains the largest, but can no longer find a coalition partner to keep the majority. The most important thing is that the opposition has finally succeeded in making the narrative of the political democratic center resonate in unison. If this hadn’t happened, they wouldn’t have been able to shift the political momentum (think shredder) to their side.
There will also be elections in the Netherlands. Because the most important parties want to remain more or less in the political middle, that is where the discussion mainly lies. Between them. As a result, you hear the extremist flanks much less. That’s how resilient democracy is.