Tag: democracy

On the changing nature of the Western democratic landscape

24.11.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

While being a gifted amateur on matters of political science, all the more when they touch the essence of domestic politics in the Western democratic world, it is hard not to notice both in the US and across Europe a real shift of the political landscape. Adults living in the second half of the 20th century would find it hard to relate to political forces opposing each other today at the electoral booth, in the streets and at the dinner tables. 

The world evolves as we see with Big Tech (and now, even more so, AI), bringing drastic changes that supporters explain is akin to previous industrial revolutions. It is a fact, even if a dauting one, all the more for those who will be AI-jobless while the mega-tech billionaires will keep thriving. It would appear that our political landscape has gradually changed too over recent decades. There is no more of the usual fight between the once traditional right and left as they have actually also changed in nature and the left-right terminology no longer fully applies. Today some would argue that the divide is more between pro-democracy parties and mild autocracy ones. Others would see the divide between traditional centrist parties against hard right parties, the old social democratic left having been marginalised (like Mitterrand’s once powerful Socialist Party in France) if not taking a hard but unsuccessful version of its former self. Polarisation has also become the word of the day. And it is clear that many voters increasingly dissatisfied by traditional democratic parties in power have shifted their votes to hard right ones that have also gradually and smartly moderated their stances when closer to power, looking at the rare but so far highly practical and effective Meloni example in Italy. 

It is clear that old right-wing parties like the Republican Party in the US under Trump have had to deal with a combination of White House autocratic leadership flavour with endless executive orders and retribution lawsuits against opponents, while experiencing an unexpected and odd left-wing protectionist shift against free trade that was a key historical tenet of the Grand Old Party. It is clear that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would be rather perplexed when looking at their own party today, even if many elected officials may gradually refocus on their core values as Trump’s poll rating keeps going down (35% post recent elections) – and they follow their natural job preservation mantra as already seen. The Democratic Party also went more left in a country where the word did not really exist, in order to accommodate at times the cultural and societal needs of its big urban centre voters, losing some of its centrism appeal on the way and paying for it dearly nationwide. 

Unwanted immigration, regardless of any criminal feature and as it was perceived by many as altering national identity (even in a country of immigrants like the US), became a key factor in changing the Western political landscape. Fifteen years ago, the economy and “affordability” were the key issues for many voters (it still is as we see with Trump) but immigration waves, at times welcome by the likes of Angela Merkel due to the need to boost the national economy, brought many issues that gradually focused the voters’ minds and gave rise to hard-right parties, often led by good marketers, to increase their share of the vote. Today, they lead in the polls in the UK, France or even Germany (some even arguing, not crazily, that they even won in the US, historically the first democracy in the world). 

As an aside, and even if potentially seen as a far-fetched point by some (if not many), one could argue that Osama bin Laden won in the end. While 9-11 was a horrible tragedy, it led to various US military operations in the Middle East that many felt warranted but led, years later, to the Arab Spring and a total dislocation of some of the regimes and countries in the region that fostered mass immigration waves with societal impacts, like security-related ones, that we keep seeing today. (Even the UK Labour government is now dealing with a change in its refugee asylum policy.) The current upheaval in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, following the retreat of the former French colonial power and its replacement by the new Wagner Group (interestingly named Africa Corps), allowed for regional Jihadists to be on the verge of seizing control of these countries, which might lead to another wave of immigration towards Europe as the horrific civil war in Sudan and the horrific Tanzanian developments easily could – and strengthen its far-right parties. As already stated, these far-right parties, that offer easy solutions to complex issues, provide new avenues for many easily swayed voters. These voters are frustrated by the often-slow pace and absence of clear results of democratic European governments that are also culturally attached to values and principles like human rights and a natural aversion to racism, making them struggle with managing issues like mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East, illegal or not, in the 21st century.  In some ways, and while American agriculture experiences strong labour shortages, the Trump team combined the fight against unwanted immigration with that against crime but also the drug trade, this also leading to drastic geostrategic and military developments as seen in Venezuela.  

The new political landscape is linked to the fact that elections are a game today where the hard-right has shown uncanny excellence. Ideology matters less than dealing with some issues like immigration and affordability – at least in words, usually strong. The problem with hard-right parties, even if they can win elections, is that they are usually ill-equipped to manage governments efficiently while their programmes create strong, if not always violent, opposition, changing the very nature of life in some countries. An additional feature of some far-right parties, especially in Europe, is their closeness to Russia, which is today the natural enemy of democratic Western governments in the context of the Ukraine war and multiple daily disruptions led by Russian intelligence. It is clear that the rising AfD in Germany, Fico in Slovakia, Orbán in Hungary or some unexpected and unfit Babiš coalition partners in Czechia are not anti-Russian (to say the least), at times on energy grounds, even if Nigel Farage in the UK, Marine Le Pen in France (in spite of her 2017 campaign previously funded by a Prague-based Russian bank) and clearly Meloni in power in Italy took their distance from Moscow, all the more as they know where their voters stand on the matter. 

We live in a Western world where winning elections is the end game while governing has to be done but is often mismanaged, notably by hard-right leaders, with back and forth moves à la TACO as seen with Trump in less than one year. At least, we still benefit from a democratic environment and set-up which at times can put a stop to the overreach of some of the hard-right leaders as seen in America – but for how long? It is clear that it is key for increased voter participation in elections, as long as they are free and fair, especially from the younger generations who should focus more on their own future and manage their love of social media, if not video games, in a better self-preserving way. On the same note and as Erdoğan’s opposition leader and Mayor of Istanbul, now facing “2000 years” in jail for running a criminal organisation (real democracy in Istanbul?), said, it is key to “communicate” with everybody of all ages and political inclinations to foster dialogue and better understanding of what matters. As Ekrem İmamoğlu stressed in a great way all should remember: “People-ism against populism”.      

Warmest regards,

Serge                                         

Understanding why the centre is failing 

14.7.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

As we live in a new world marked by the resumed and unpredictable Trump era and the rise of populism and its autocratic style across the West, I thought it was interesting to understand why the political centre is failing today. 

Today the so-called centre comprises centre-left and centre-right political parties and governments that used to be simply seen as left and right since the end of WW2 when extremist parties, notably of the hard-right populist type, were by and large non-existent. The difference with the past is that populist parties that would have been put aside by any electorate in the second half of the 20th century have risen to levels where today they are potentially in positions to win general elections and run key countries in Europe. It could be argued that the hijacking of the Republican party by a populist Trump, even if he did not have a hard-right party to support him in the US election, is akin to a drastic change of the political landscape that led to populism and an autocratic style in power (this shown by executive decisions and little supervision from a politically captured US Supreme Court). 

No doubt, liberal democracy can be seen as too complex and slow-moving for many, all the more so if coalitions are in power (as seen in France today – as the only way to keep the hard right out). Centrist parties are also not known to be decisive when in power, creating a combination of features that result in slow motion and little if any solutions to problems societies face today (as seen by many British voters with the Labour government after one year in Britain).  The priorities of centrist governments may not be seen as aligned with many voters’ concerns due to a lack of desired and at times needed change combined with the complexity of governing.

Beyond the eternal key voter concerns linked to the cost of living, two issues have invaded the minds of many voters across the West, prompting electoral wins like that of Trump in November 2024. The major one is linked to immigration, legal or illegal, even if many economies depend on it while most voters fixated on it would never take up the jobs that need this workforce. The problem is also linked to national identity, a sensitive topic that can have flavours of racism, but is felt vividly by many across the West, this especially following the aftermath of the Arab Spring and implosions of a few countries in the Middle East that triggered mass-immigration. The second issue for many voters who followed populist parties, was excessive diversity that seemed to decrease the prospects of many voters to reach what they saw as their natural roles in society, especially among white males – again, as seen in the US. 

Populist parties have exploited these two sensitive issues for electoral gains as they saw them as an easier way to deal with voter resentment in order to increase their positions and eventually win power. As previously stated, the problem is that, while such an approach can help populists win votes, it does not change the fact that most, if not all, populist leaders are ill-equipped to manage governments, all the more so in our intricate times. The French have always enjoyed graduates of top graduate schools to eventually manage their country (especially ENA or Ecole Nationale d’Administration since 1945) while the would-be hard-right populist presidential candidate in 2027, Jordan Bardella, a very nice and appealing young man of 29, is only a high school graduate. Populists focus on the message (borrowing much from the show business world to make it more appealing) and the resentment, also playing on an anti-elite feeling often with candidates who seem culturally and socially closer to their electorates. There is little doubt that populists are good salesmen as seen with an ever-present Nigel Farage and his new post-Brexit Reform UK or with Alice Weidel for the AfD in Germany (with Prussia or eastern Germany being a new and for some historically natural home for the party). The focus of populist parties is clearly on easy-to-understand harsh policies that should respond quickly and drastically to the resentment of many voters who feel societally lost and forgotten by what they see as the established elite of our times. 

One of the key tools, at times not planned but certainly exploited by the populists, has been the rise of social media with its influencers and the sad fact that younger generations do not read as much as older ones when they read at all (also explaining the demise of traditional newspapers and magazines and the rise of subscription prices many of us witness). People do not “think” as they did when they ever do and, as such, are more prone to being influenced, all the more by easy solutions to complex issues, also where their management is not the core focus of the primarily attractive message. The perceived inability of getting things done by traditional politicians and parties and radical game-changing options are the core and increasingly well-received message of populists, enhanced by new and constant social media, to gain power today.    

The centre is seen as reflecting a broken society where nothing voters want can happen efficiently, due to the slow and sub-efficient process often attached to democratic institutions. Voters who vote for populist candidates and parties want quick policy results, often not realising that such regimes they want will likely one day stop asking for their votes. It is actually possible today, however, that many voters – hopefully a minority – would not miss democracy and their voting rights if they saw their key wishes being implemented, though populist management efficiency is not likely to be there in the first place. However, with time, lasting autocracy and its likely features like official and natural corruption, would likely be resented even by those who brought it to power.   

Managing government in Western democracies will always be a complex enterprise mixing short- and long-term issues, often delicate in nature and taking time to get results seen by electorates.  The system is not broken, but is facing a new social media era combined with a breed of politicians across the West primarily focused on winning elections at all costs and not thinking about what it means to be in power in a democratic context. Easy populism and government efficiency are de facto antinomic, all the more in a true democratic context. Managing government may be increasingly seen as inefficient and boring but only reflects a very involved process and set of steps that are today needed to keep democracy alive and indeed working. It is the work of centrist parties and politicians to get this message across, also using the new media tools of our times. 

Warmest regards,

Serge                          

The sad slide of America and its impact on the world 

17/6/25

Dear Partners in Thought,

Within nearly five months of Trump 2.0, we saw a deluge of executive orders often aggressively and erratically dealing with a wide number of issues at all levels, but going nowhere positively, while gradually destroying the core tissue of America and the world we knew.   

Trump 2.0 is not simply a political phase of public mismanagement or excessive policy making. It is the end of an era for America and the world. These unforeseen times – and indeed one man – have unleashed, however unwittingly, amazing developments such as the actual and attempted wide-scale assassinations of Democratic state representatives and their families in Minnesota as if all was now fair game for extremists. America is now sliding into autocracy, with the US ordering state national guards and even US Marines to deal with mostly pacific anti-deportation demonstrations, thus creating more violence as a result. The US executive style has now reached unseen lows, with descriptions of California Governor Newsome as “Newscum”, and the same for Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. And in the midst of such rapid democratic weakening, almost unnoticed substantial self-enrichment appears to be a new and acceptable presidential attribute. While what matters in Trump 2.0 is mainly the news impact and, it appears, Russian-style military parades, all these events slowly but surely throw America back to the late 1850s when a civil war was looming.    

Trump 2.0 and its quasi-1930s Lindbergh protectionism have also empowered many foreign leaders to adopt aggressive moves against their enemies, knowing that President Trump will not mind or will be too weak to react, thus making the world more dangerous and even nuclear confrontations more possible. We know that history is repeating itself and that many of us have no memories of WW2 or even the Cold War as more than 50 per cent of Americans today were not born in 1985. The degree of passivity about Trump 2.0 of many in America is still surprising, notably within the business community, though we see that this is likely changing as enough is indeed enough. 

The MAGA base, often but not always poorly (if at all) educated and living in often empty areas, naturally wants a king (hence the fair point with the No King demonstrations) as they look for quick executive decisions implemented without the often-slow pace and intricate process of liberal democratic governments. Populists the world over play on this colourful electoral selling of quick and simple change and anti-elite feeling, often taking advantage of the fact that democracies are slow-moving. In the case of America, the excesses of diversity or woke drives and substantial illegal immigration – two areas that are not “black and white” in essence as the US economy would agree on the latter – sent Trump back to the White House where he could be even more himself this time, mostly surrounded by obedient servants.

As belonging to an early Gaullist family, having worn a “Giscard at the top” tee-shirt on the Champs Elysées at age 14, and having been a member of the national youth team of Chirac’s neo-Gaullist RPR party under the helm of a then-young Sarkozy, I am no raving leftie. I am for law and order – though in their fair versions, unlike what we see across the pond today. I know what matters and the value of fairness and professionalism in politics, something which is missing in the American executive today, all while their voters will be the first ones to pay for the misdeeds we keep witnessing. It is hard to believe that one man, who is treating his country and the world as if it were an episode of The Apprentice, is behind all the chaos we see and we may pay for. Trump 2.0 will be a treasure for political writers for generations to come, assuming we still have a going world.  

As a French-born transatlantic European who enjoyed his visits at Yorktown, I feel we need to assist the Trump opposition while both traditional parties remake themselves as they badly need. We need the strong America we knew with its Western leadership, soft and real power, all based on values and principles that strengthened democracy globally. 

One thing is sure for the geopolitical risk thinker I am: America may have become a risk for many, including itself. Trump may also have unwittingly served the interests of some of the many rivals or competitors he naturally dislikes under the misguided and self-harming banner of his America First. 

Warmest regards,

Serge

Trying to understand and cure the rise of populism across the West

8.4.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

As there is a global flood of much-needed pieces written about the Trump 2.0 chaotic developments and their expected negative impact on the world, I thought that it was useful to take a pause from the matter and instead, explore their root causes in the US but also across the West. Why have we seen such a rise in populism or essentially extreme-right programs and leaders across the West over the last 15 years with an acute focus today? 

Before the Trump era, especially from the 2.0 vintage, America never experienced populism, at least since the 20th century. If anything, America stood for democratic values and principles, both as leader and guarantor of what was known as the Free World. America greatly benefitted from its leadership at many cultural, political and economic levels. Europe was naturally deeply hurt by Hitler, Mussolini and Franco and others who led autocracies, at times not wholly rejected by their own populations (this leading to major wars and conflicts), while the Cold War ended with a victory for the West and democracy. The 1990s brought peace within the whole West including the whole of Europe as well as incremental globalisation linked to peace through trade; but gradually, while Russia operated a return of history, old and new extremist political platforms rebuilt their appeal among an increasing share of the Western populations. 

Trump’s MAGA base or indeed “cult”, a most successful populist gathering focused on one leader, who “represents” about 25% of the actively voting electorate and 50% of the Republican voters (as of early March, so just before the recent chaos), was a new development not seen since Charles Lindbergh and his America First in the 1930s. France’s National Rally is the child of the National Front created by Jean-Marie Le Pen (with former Vichy government and terrorist OAS partners) in the late 1960s and now led by his daughter Marine Le Pen – much in the news following her recent court conviction. While Reform UK may espouse some extremist views, and is led by Nigel Farage, an ill-fated Brexit-maker, a rapidly rising Alternative for Germany, led by Alice Weidel, with an unusual gay profile for far-right parties, also reflects its Prussian if not Soviet-controlled past given its core geographic base. And then we see the likes of Victor Orban, formerly a rather liberal politician, who seized upon autocratic features to help him keep securing his 15-year hold over Hungary, this with all the geopolitical implications we know. All those parties and individuals either secured power via elections, like with MAGA and Trump in the US (while hijacking a traditional party) or are in a position to win one like with Marine Le Pen in France, if not for her embezzlement conviction and ineligibility pre-mid-2026 appeal outcome. While the extreme right was always there and a medium to promote the career of its leaders, the political landscape of the West has drastically changed in recent years, now allowing them to win elections. It is good to attempt an understanding of why, and to see what could be done to reverse this trend. 

The political landscape has changed mainly as politics and elections, as well as society, have changed too. Winning elections today is increasingly a show business endeavour where party leaders, all the more coming from extremist and populist groups, need to appeal to voters who want simple solutions to complex issues and some degree of flamboyance. The desired simplicity is often driven by voters not being equipped to understand how societies and indeed governments are being managed, or how the world actually works. The lack of education for many is also mixed with a feeling of disgruntlement against an established elite that would have deprived them of many benefits they would have kept for themselves. This approach is often associated with a reading inability (the illiteracy rate in America is amazingly high even if not often mentioned) – this while traditional media readership is declining – and an excessive reliance on social media and podcasts that fit their desire to hear what they want. This fact is also often combined with an increased isolation rate and the inability to “exchange” on issues, especially among the younger generations, that worsens the drive for simple and game-changing solutions to their perceived problems. 

Most populist party voters are not neo-Nazis, even if they can be found among them. Voters are often driven by topics that one can understand, even if the populist solutions on offer are not the best ones to achieve what they want and keep the essence of what is democracy – which in any case they may no longer understand nor value. Trump won in November 2024 on three key drivers that many voters supported. Beyond the obvious one of ensuring prices would stay low at the shopping centre (definitely not what is happening), the two other populist drivers were illegal immigration and the so-called “woke”. Illegal immigration as a political topic can be tainted with racism but also reflects cultural identity and making sure migrants are not criminals, something that residents of borders like in Texas, can be forgiven to want. “Woke,” which can also be known as DEI (diversity, equality and inclusion) which, while projecting sound values in essence, can also be too extreme in its promotion, especially within schools and companies, where “excellence” may not always have been seen of late as the key admission, recruitment or advancement driver. Once again, the problem is with “too much” immigration, in particular of the illegal kind, and too much “woke”, all the more in the face of those who behave according to traditional and tested values like excellence or common sense. Understanding these key points is key to ensuring sound immigration and diversity, while traditional parties and governments have often missed the point, appearing to live in what they saw as new times as a result, and hoping to gain votes in other segments of the voting population. In many ways, populists often win because traditional parties and mainstream governments miss what matters to the general population of voters, many of whom will try new and often wild avenues. Trump 2.0 is a case in point even if, in this unusual case, the harm to America and the world is found at all levels of domestic and foreign policies, going well beyond the three focus drivers of its unwittingly self-harmed voters. The hugely negative impact of Trump tariffs is only one very vivid example of what ill-thought-out populist policies can achieve in no time in the globalised world today.  

Populist parties or movements, often led by people who can today expertly sell and win an election, are too often (if not always) poorly equipped to govern in the ways most voters would expect, based on past experience with traditional parties. Even if these movements have successfully seized issues that have created resentment among disenfranchised voters, the end result can be chaotic. Trump 2.0 is again a vivid example of this inability to manage a government sensibly, both domestically and internationally, with all the chaos that can follow that their own voters may also pay for (all the more when adults are no longer in the room as they were in Trump 1.0). It is clear that the way to exclude easy populist salespeople from running governments in the future is to let them show their inabilities once in power, but the key problem is that they can then also create autocracies with no future elections in sight (will there really be US mid-terms in 2026?) or create wars and conflicts to change the electorate’s focus on what is not working (what about a war with China to make my voters forget the damages?) Having said this, it is also the duty of traditional parties to keep ensuring their programmes fit the needs of voters and their leadership teams are strong to soundly convince them, and then run governments efficiently and deal with issues that matter.   

The rise of populism can be repelled but only through focusing on ways to do so at many levels and not simply wishing for the best. Society and governing will never be ideal, and many issues will always remain, but preserving true democracy as we know it, for those countries that still enjoy it, is key. Populism and disgruntlement will never die but can be managed to avoid or minimize substantial harm to all parties, including populist voters who often are the first to feel the pain. If anything, the Trump 2.0 experiment, which will be harder to defend by its makers, is a case in point even if the cost of being right is too high.

One of the key decisions which traditional governments still in power should take, and working along democratic values and principles (like in most of the EU and hopefully later in the US in a post-Trump world if any) is to focus on “educating” their electorate by making them understand what is behind democracy, government and their electoral process. In addition, governments should explain what they do at the economic, social and foreign policy levels, this in concise information letters or via internet to all citizens. Education is key to changing the minds as to how democracy works, its benefits and key features. While not perfect, it would be a sound start. 

Going more deeply, a stronger focus on mandatory public education through expanded funding would also help children and young adults to think more carefully about the benefits of Western democracies while preparing them better for a happy and productive life, hopefully gradually away from phones and other screens. In many ways, especially for Europe, strengthening education and defence should be the two joint pillars of dealing efficiently with our new world and its threats. 

As to the impact on the younger generations of social media, abusive video games and not reading books or mainstream newspapers, it’s up to all of us – at a family level – to try to make children understand the benefits of sound thinking devoid of easy manipulations and avoid the hours spent in self-imposed jail-like bedroom isolation. It is the duty of our new times.       

Warmest regards,

Serge                                             

The main challenges of democracy today and how to manage them

10/10/24

Dear Partners in Thought,

Democracy is the main issue of the day, given its fragile state, as shown with the various books on the topic from the great Anne Applebaum’s “Autocracy, Inc.” to Yale historian Timothy Snyder’s new “On Freedom” in line with his earlier famed “On Tyranny”.  With that in mind, I wanted to deal concisely with the key matter of ensuring democracy’s survival. In doing so, I decided to explore the main causes of Western democracy’s fragility in the 2020s while stressing the best ways to ensure its future. 

Democracy, which most of us in the West took for granted, is a very recent political system in the history of the world. We can all agree that the number of centuries where some form of democracy we can relate to appeared is very short. While we can be grateful to America and its founding fathers for giving us the roots of modern democracy in the 1770s, that great country is today experiencing some upheaval that would make the great Republican President Ronald Reagan, not known for his liberalism, turn many times in his grave when looking at what became of his “Grand Old Party”.

In a strange way, autocracies, including those with fake elections, have little hope for eventual democracy – not that it would ever be the goal of their leaderships – unless a coup happens or a strong leader suddenly and unexpectedly dies (a sad but crucial point for Russians and North Koreans with their very personalised power at the top). Autocracies, so well described by Applebaum, are not the main threat, short of war, to democracy as we know it in the West. The tactical advantage of autocracies over democracies is that they are easier to manage as there is no counterweight to the absolute leadership – and as such they can last for long. The key question today is whether democracies can last, given the odd ways they have operated over recent years. 

Democracies are always complex to manage. Their main challenge today is actually “within”. Democracies have slid into show business at election time and well before, mirroring Taylor Swift concerts, though often without the singing and performing excellence. Too many voters no longer focus on policies but like the fight and opportunity to express strong feelings – at times in a very necessary existential way as seen with MAGA hat wearers. Democracy is now often a forum for the easiest but wrong solutions to the most complex issues promoted by vote-grabbing populists, usually targeting electorates not always equipped to understand what really matters. 

To be fair, traditional parties of the centre left and centre right have not helped the democratic resolve in refusing to tackle valid societal problems that were often difficult culturally, like immigration, leaving open doors for populist parties and leaders in the US and across Europe. Tackling problems like immigration, a matter that angers many voters due to the resurgence of a once-forgotten national identity, is challenging for governments also dealing with the economy that often requires not necessarily cheaper but sometimes much-needed labour for the whole society to keep growing. And immigration can be a strange mix of illegal and usually perfectly legal individuals, while pet dogs happily keep going without being actually eaten as lately discovered in Ohio. 

The main challenge of Western democracy is the rising frustration and anger of many citizens at issues that have not been well-managed by traditional government parties, a trend fostered by the bad side of tech via social media that have gradually hurt independent thinking. Many voters started to follow social media that targeted the established old-fashioned elite, hoping that anti-elite populist newcomers were the answer, however untested and by and large unequipped to govern properly, lacking as they do the right tools and formation. One of the obvious threats posed by populists if they win key elections is clearly whether these will be the last ones, all the more given their closeness to or benign understanding of autocrats – as we see so often these days with populist leaders and the way they relate to Putin. However, and in some unexpected way, Italy’s Georgia Meloni became a rare example of a hard-right leader deciding to adopt a moderate and democratic stance at many levels once in power.     

The fact is that our democracies will always need a highly educated elite to give guidance to the wider and diverse electorate – or we should hope so. Hence both high education and proper selection are key and the way to ensure our old West can go on and thrive for its people on the basis it always has done. Even if a scary word for many, elitism is good in essence in a David Halberstam “The Best and the Brightest” kind of way, when he described the JFK team (I agree the historical point can be argued too). Elitism based on education and providing competence is not a shame, even if that elite will always be small in nature – as long as it represents and defends the interests of democratic voters. Elitism based on education, the latter that should be as well-spread as possible within society, also to drive for common sense in the political debate, should be welcome by all. 

There is also a need for traditional parties to acknowledge issues that are easily seized by the populists and start managing them more forcefully with results in mind, this including immigration, while knowing the complexity of such endeavours. Lastly, society with the assistance of governments should ensure that social media use by minors is controlled (including phones in primary and secondary schools), this via a multiple legal and parental approach, also to avoid teenagers being lost for hours in their rooms or walking the streets while watching their phones, making them easy prey for cheap populism later. One of the key features of democratic survival is to ensure younger generations are traditionally educated and can think on their own, even if enjoying the pleasures tech can provide. Common sense should be the driver of such policies, not ideology.     

There is no easy nor black and white solution to managing and strengthening democracy, but a suitable leadership and a focus on traditional education for the whole society, while avoiding the current pitfalls provided by social media, are among the best recipes for democratic success and happiness over the long term. 

Warmest regards

Serge