Democratic Neutrality: A Threat to the Survival of Liberal Democracy

The “democratic neutrality” appeared in recent day’s liberal democratic world implicated a serious threat to the survival of liberal democratic institutions. This phenomenon deserves careful and in-depth examination.

A liberal democratic system, will decide who holds which office and exercises what powers through regular, institutionalized elections. During election campaigns, candidates and political parties they belonged are required to present wat they stand on issues of public concern, allowing voters to judge whether their proposals are reasonable and feasible. Through the process, voters can also evaluate whether or not the politicians and their teams possess the qualities and capabilities to deal with unforeseen crises.

One of the fundamental assumptions underlying liberal democracy is that collective wisdom will be superior to individual intelligence. In an electoral process free from the threat of violence and manipulation by authoritarian power, individuals and political parties must submit themselves for public scrutiny.

Because radical thinking and ridiculous policies are unlikely to attract sufficient support. Candidates always need to present themselves as rational and mature, and wading toward the political center. This shared understanding as called “electability” on candidates seeking electoral victory, prevent them to advance radical political proposals and encourage them to behave appropriately.

Yet in an era of rapid change, many people find themselves victimized in poverty, insecurity, and personal frustration. Some would develop antisocial sentiments/behaviors as a result of personality flaws, prolonged discrimination, or deep-seated hatred.

In elections, these individuals find chances to assert themselves, often supporting politicians who make bold but hollow promises. Yes, the more absurd the promises, the more appealing they will be to entice the electorates desperate for change. Whether or not such promises are sincere or practical become a secondary consideration.

But liberal democracy will crumble if both voters and politicians are becoming true believers. Once the social order is under pressure of breaking down, political speculators who despise the rule of law and refuse to accept institutional constraints will seek it as an opportunity to seize power. They will stir up public dissatisfaction and resentment for further catastrophic social tumult. Because they know it’s easy to agitate the emotions from those suffered from helplessness, inferiority, frustration and daily oppressive realities

The political speculators exploit mass movements and get power. Then they will dismantle the institutions and laws designed to prevent the rise of dictators. Onerous means will be employed to suppress dissent. The state then falls into a vicious cycle: the more institutions are undermined, the more extreme politics will become; and the more extreme politics becomes, the more difficult it will be to restore those institutions.

In reality, regardless of the level of economic development or the soundness of social institutions, every society, ethnic group, state at any historical period will have its share of unscrupulous and marginalized people. Governments and charitable organizations should seek to alleviate their suffering and help them integrate into the “norm”.

In modern democracies, where communication technologies can rapidly amplify the negative emotions of a few people, it is important to put off the unlogic resentment and indignation that were once confined to individuals or small groups at the beginning, or it can be transformed into politically mobilized protests paving the way for radical extremists and political speculators with opportunities to exploit social divisions and seize power.

The political platforms marketed by these fervent politicians and their followers often fail to withstand the test of time and social truth. Their pre-election promises may fall down one by one because they are fundamentally impractical. Their personal integrity and competence may also be uncovered, revealing their less admirable nature once they assume office. But perplexingly, they may continue to enjoy the support of their followers.

Many academics, journalists, political insiders, and highly-educated tend to believe that the momentum of such political figures will be eclipsed after they’re exposed of ugly nature. However, in a democracy, only when an election actually takes place and the votes are counted can we determine whether these political forces have truly lost their capacity to threaten democratic institutions.

Recent political developments in the United States, Europe, and Latin America reveal a disturbing trend: politicians and parties advocating extreme ideologies have often seen their popularity boosted even after they made known their vulgar intention to grab power.

In many countries, the extremist parties may have a considerable chance of replacing mainstream parties and taking office for first time. Those already in power, may continue to consolidate their authoritative gains through reelection and declare the demise of liberal democracy of the nation.

It is hard to explain this phenomenon through conventional wisdom to distinguish good and evil. and right from wrong. After all, it must be the case that some people have suffered from certain issues that they regard the status quo as intolerable and believe that immediate change is imperative.

Consequently, when unconventional political figures or parties offer solutions or just attention for the issues some voters have so much concerns, they will appreciate and believe someone is willing to address their grievances seriously. This may remain true even when the proposed solutions are contrary to human nature, impractical, or likely to inflict even greater harm later.

The fact that a number of voters may select support discredited politicians and parties rather than continue placing their trust in established mainstream political forces will compel us to learn now that the survival of liberal democracy might not be for granted.

It is a phenomenon within liberal democratic systems that deserves closer examination. We can call it “democratic neutrality” tentatively. It only happens when people feel alright to disregard issues they’re not interested, so in certain senses, so it may also be described as “democratic indifference.”

In countries where democratic institutions have been functioning for many years, voters tend not to reject a politician outright just because he or she shows anti-democratic inclination.

On the contrary, if these politicians or parties they belong express agreement with voters on one particular issue, or promise to take decisive action on that issue, voters may be willing to cast their ballots in their favor.

As for other issues, voters may remain unconvinced or even strongly dislike certain positions taken by anyone. Yet, as long as those issues do not interfere with their own interests, they may simply choose to ignore the disagreement, adopting an apparently tolerant and neutral attitude.

Such neutrality, however, is often not the product of thoughtful deliberation or genuine tolerance. Rather, it reflects indifference toward a broad range of public issues or we could say it is a feeling of complacent over long time liberal democratic indulgence.

Probably for the political calculus, certain politicians take a strategy of incremental advances: they introduce one proposal after another and implement one executive order after another. They do not need to secure majority support for every issue or every action. As long as they can gain an advantage on one or two issues that will resonate with voters' emotions, they may accumulate sufficient support to win an election.

For example, some voters may be unfamiliar with, or simply unconcerned about, a particular politician's other policies. However, if they believe that this politician is more uncompromising and determined than moderate opponents on issues such as opposition to immigration or anti-Muslim sentiment, and is even more likely to take swift action, they may choose to vote for that politician.

Under the circumstance, they may turn a blind eye to the politician's anti-democratic tendencies in other areas or their unscrupulousness to damage the whole society for proposal. and actions.

Actually, it is a calculated “shotgun approach” to win political campaign: the presumptuous politicians launch offensives on multiple issues simultaneously, using different policy positions to attract different groups of voters and thereby forage enough support to win.

Observers often see these presumptuous politicians and their parties advancing a dozen, or even a hundred, proposals that definitely not to command majority support among the public. They then conclude, based on the individual approval ratings of these proposals, that such politicians cannot possibly win an election.

The assessment is overly rational ignoring an important factor: voters do not cast separate ballots on every individual policy. Instead, they must make an overall choice among a limited number of candidates and political parties.

When voters focus on only one or two issues while adopting an attitude of “democratic neutrality” toward the rest, politicians who appear to lack majority support may nevertheless prevail at the ballot box.

Consequently, misconstruing the effects of selective attention and political indifference may lead us to seriously underestimate the possibility of extremist parties gaining or retaining power.

Changing a government through elections rather than revolution at least indicates that the state is failed and the violent overthrow of its government becomes necessary. Its democratic institutions still have capacity to operate so as to constrain the power of those in office.

This does not, however, mean that democracy is necessarily safe. If voters use elections to hand power to individuals who intend to destroy the democratic system, probably in an accelerating pace, democracy may lose its true meaning through legal procedures.

By comparison, authoritarian and totalitarian states do not allow the public to replace their rulers through free and fair elections reflecting the people's political will peacefully.

Within the political logic of such systems, individual choices are often dismissed as expressions of self-interest, while the common interests of society are claimed to be understood and represented exclusively by the dictator.

The argument dated back to the thesis made by the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau between the “General Will” and the “Will of All.” The former refers to the common interest, whereas the latter represents the add-up of individual wills.

The problem arises when a dictator claims to be the sole representative of the General Will, he will have complete freedom to interpret any proposal. The distinction may become a pretext for monopolizing political power, so comes the tyrant-envy of today’s authoritarian-will-be.

Liberal democracies were established precisely because people do not believe that any leader possesses absolute wisdom or is immune from making mistakes.

Democratic institutions therefore realizes that political judgments can be wrong and preserve the opportunity to correct possible wrong-doings through the separation of powers, the rule of law, freedom of speech, regular elections, and public scrutiny.

Yet the emergence of extremist parties and political figures, from Europe to Latin America and the United States, is now posing a severe challenge to the institutions supposed to check and balance the tyrant’s power.

These politicians often try to magnify the governance efficiency of authoritarian states in certain areas deliberately, showing to public an impression that strongman politics is superior to democracy. At the same time, they never speak about the risks associated with unchecked power, persuading voters that longstanding problems can be resolved simply by granting sufficient authority to a strong leader.

In this process, voters may unwittingly offer a political mandate for specific problems into an assent of a leader's unrestricted authority.

When politicians further erode institutional checks and balances, reducing the political space for oppositions, or even depict their critics as foreign agents or internal enemies, democratic institutions may exist only in name while the dictator and his lackey continue to prosper.

The most troubling aspect of this dooming process is that it does not necessarily take the form of a revolution or coup d'état that people unwanted. It may begin with a legitimate election, with voters' strong expectation for reformation on certain issues, or more than often, many people’s indifference toward other public issues.

Therefore, when reform promises become justifications for dismantling institutions, and when voters tolerate the continued concentration of power in order to resolve immediate problems, though in glacier speed and get unnoticed. Democracy may begin to sow the seeds of its own destruction through normal procedures.

Reform may evolve into revolution, and revolution may, in turn, become the starting point for the rise of a dictator.

When a democratic society begins to believe that only unchecked power can solve its problems, the real crisis facing liberal democracy may only just be beginning.

From Brazil's October 25 referendum on the presidential candidates, to Israel's October 27 general election, and finally to the United States' November 3 midterm elections, will extremist parties and political figures suffer the crushing defeats on the grounds of their absurd policy positions as self-proclaimed “rational observers” have predicted?

Or will the outcome once again defy conventional expectations?

Let us wait and see.