elpais.com
Shift from Liberal to Illiberal Governance: A Comparison of US and European Experiences
The rise of nationalist leaders globally, particularly Donald Trump's return to power in the US, marks a potential shift away from liberal democracy, as seen in the Republican Party's actions after the 2020 election, contrasted by the largely norm-abiding behavior of similar movements in Europe.
- How do the experiences of the US and Europe differ in confronting the rise of extremist parties, and what explains these divergences?
- The erosion of democratic norms, particularly the rejection of election results and tolerance of political violence, poses a significant threat to established democracies. The US experience, as detailed by Levitsky and Ziblatt, highlights the fragility of democratic institutions when faced with extremist actors who openly defy established rules. The speed of this decline in the US, compared to slower trends in Europe, raises important questions about the specific vulnerabilities of each system.
- What are the immediate consequences of the shift towards illiberal governance, as exemplified by the rise of figures like Trump and the actions of the Republican Party?
- The rise of nationalist leaders like Trump, Meloni, and others signals a shift from liberal to illiberal governance. This change is exemplified by the Republican Party's actions following the 2020 election, where they refused to accept defeat and encouraged violence. This contrasts with similar right-wing movements in Europe, which have largely adhered to democratic norms.
- What are the underlying structural factors and institutional weaknesses that contributed to the US's proximity to democratic collapse, and how can these lessons be applied to prevent similar crises in other countries?
- The contrasting trajectories of the US and European democracies in the face of rising nationalism underscore the need for a nuanced analysis of each nation's vulnerabilities. The question of why the US came closer to the brink, while many European democracies have not, points towards critical differences in the resilience of their respective institutions and the strength of their democratic norms. The long-term consequences of this divergence are yet to be fully realized.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article emphasizes the potential dangers of the Trump era and the fragility of American democracy. The headline, while not explicitly provided, can be inferred to be alarmist and negative. The selection and sequencing of examples—placing the US situation first and foremost—reinforces this negative framing, potentially leading readers to overestimate the threat to democracy.
Language Bias
The article uses strong language such as "motosierra" (chainsaw), "deriva autoritaria" (authoritarian drift), and repeatedly emphasizes the potential collapse of democracy. These choices contribute to a negative and alarmist tone. While these terms might be used descriptively, less charged alternatives could enhance neutrality, for example, replacing "motosierra" with "strongman" or "authoritarian".
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the US political landscape and the rise of Trumpism, neglecting a comparative analysis of similar right-wing populist movements in other established democracies. While it mentions some examples in Europe, it lacks a detailed comparison to understand the unique factors contributing to the US situation. The omission of such a comparison limits the conclusions drawn and leaves the reader with an incomplete understanding of the broader global trend.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between a liberal and illiberal worldview, suggesting a simplistic shift in power rather than acknowledging the complexities and nuances within each ideology. It oversimplifies the political spectrum, neglecting the existence of various centrist and moderate positions.
Gender Bias
The analysis primarily focuses on male political figures, with only passing references to female leaders. This lack of balanced gender representation might inadvertently reinforce gender biases by default. There is no explicit gendered language, but the underrepresentation of women warrants attention.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the rise of nationalist and potentially authoritarian leaders globally, including Trump, posing a threat to democratic institutions and the rule of law. The erosion of democratic norms, acceptance of election results, and rejection of violence as described in the article directly impact the stability and strength of institutions, key elements of SDG 16.