Democracy in the age of Trump.

Again and again, democracy shows its resilience.

Over the past couple of decades, and particularly since Trump’s twin election wins, mourning the imminent death of democracy has become a fashion.

“Yes, we worry,” wrote a couple of Harvard professors a decade ago in a book called How Democracies Die.

“We feel dread, as do many other Americans, even as we try to reassure ourselves that things can’t really be that bad here … Populist governments have assaulted democratic institutions in Austria, France, the Netherlands, and elsewhere in Europe. And in the United States, for the first time in history, a man with no experience in public office, little observable commitment to constitutional rights, and clear authoritarian tendencies, was elected president.

“What does all this mean? Are we living through the decline and fall of one of the world’s oldest and most successful democracies?”

Ten years later, the answer has emerged: No. Democracy is not dead. It’s not even in hibernation. It’s true that in some countries (Austria, Italy, Czechia, Belgium, India) authoritarian and far-right parties are ascendant. In Spain, the outlook for Pedro Sanchez’s centre-left government is gloomy. Elsewhere, though, the picture is different. In Serbia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece, centrists or leftists are either solidly in government or ahead in the polls.

That doesn’t imply that all right-wing parties are anti-democratic, though some are. So are some leftists, though there aren’t as many of those.

But we have to stand back to see the overall picture. When we do, it becomes clear that after a dismal period for democratic norms, the developed world is reverting to mean. Two nations are most critically significant: the United States and India.

The US situation is well known. But India, with its 1.48 billion people, and Bangladesh, with 179 million, are veering away from autocratic rule and towards democracy. In India, the government of Narendra Modi is in trouble. The most recent conflagration – massive anti-government demonstrations by students and others – is part of a widespread civil revolt. Modi’s popularity ratings are still above 50%, though that’s a substantial drop from the 70%-plus approval he enjoyed until recently. The outcome is radically uncertain.

In Bangladesh, the change has already happened. A genuinely democratic election allowed the new Prime Minister, Tarique Rahman, to return from seventeen years of exile during the dictatorship of Sheik Hasina. But the new regime is punishing its predecessor: Hasina is subject to a death sentence and supporters of her Awami League are being persecuted.

Under Trump, the United States was demoted by the compilers of the two main democracy indices from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy”. For the nation that likes to see itself as the beacon of political freedom, it’s a humiliation. Now, with the repudiation of Trump at the 2026 mid-term elections, the way back might have begun. But we will have to wait until the presidential elections in two years to see that come to fruition. If it does.

Money won’t buy him love

Elon Musk can afford the enormous amount of money he spends in support of conservative, corrupt politicians like Donald Trump. According to the independent analysts at Open Secrets, he gave more than $US445 million to Republican candidates ahead of the mid-term elections. It not only didn’t work: that money featured in Democrat campaigns, particularly those of the Democratic Socialists of America like Abdul El-Sayed and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

So too did money from the now-toxic AIPAC (American-Israel Political Action Committee). Much of that went to candidates in Democratic Party primary contests who favoured Israel, despite that country’s genocide in Gaza. But that money was worse than wasted. It was loudly rejected by James Talarico, now senator-elect for Texas. “I’ve never taken money from AIPAC, and I’m not taking money from AIPAC in this campaign,” Talarico said. “Seeing what’s happening in Gaza makes me sick to my stomach as a teacher, as a Christian, as a human being.”

An open supporter of Israel, Jamaal Bowman, lost his bid for election: ‘If I had kept my mouth shut, I’d be in Congress’.

The presence of so much money in US elections is an affront to democracy, and voters increasingly see it that way. For the 2026 mid-terms, politicians and parties spent an estimated $US11.93 billion. In the 2023-24 period leading up to the last presidential election, Republicans spent $602 million and Democrats spent $998 million. But the Republicans won.

Researchers at the University of Colorado found that people they surveyed said money in politics and wealthy political donors are primary causes of political dysfunction.

“What we found is that it’s not money itself that people oppose,” the lead author said. “People are fine with small donations—$5 or $10 from an individual. What they oppose are massive contributions from corporations that ordinary citizens simply can’t compete with.”

As money increased, the quality of democracy suffered. It’s not the only reason – Trump’s election, too, was both a cause and an effect of political disillusionment – but it’s certainly among the reasons. But the decline of America’s democratic norms, as measured by the major indices, shows a slow descent and then a quick one.

The presence of so much money in US elections is an affront to democracy, and voters increasingly see it that way. For the 2026 mid-terms, politicians and parties spent an estimated $US11.93 billion. In the 2023-24 period leading up to the last presidential election, Republicans spent $602 million and Democrats spent $998 million. But the Republicans won.

Researchers at the University of Colorado found that people they surveyed said money in politics and wealthy political donors are primary causes of political dysfunction.

“What we found is that it’s not money itself that people oppose,” the lead author said. “People are fine with small donations—$5 or $10 from an individual. What they oppose are massive contributions from corporations that ordinary citizens simply can’t compete with.”

As money increased, the quality of democracy suffered. It’s not the only reason – Trump’s election, too, was both a cause and an effect of political disillusionment – but it’s certainly among the reasons. But the decline of America’s democratic norms, as measured by the major indices, shows a slow descent and then a quick one.

But not entirely dismal. Since this map was prepared in 2025, India and Bangladesh as well as the United States have moved back towards democratic norms and Brazil has elected a new and much more progressive president in Lula da Silva. Flavio Bolsonaro, now defeated, is seeking refuge in Trump’s America.

Young people are the drivers of the demand for representation and humanity in government. The revolt against Sheik Hasina in Bangladesh has been described as “the world’s first successful Gen-Z revolution”. Students and young people ousted Serbia’s authoritarian leader, Aleksandar Vučić and took effective control of the country. In Brazil, they were critical in the ousting of Flavio Bolsonaro and the return of Lula da Silva. Zoran Mamdani’s victory to become mayor of New York could not have happened without the fervent support of young voters and campaigners.

“The current youth rebellions are of a different order,” wrote Gordon Brown, the former British prime minister, “breaking out in a new and more dangerous global environment and challenging authorities on issues well beyond education.

“Young people face an AI-led unemployment crisis; they lose out from the skewing of public spending towards older people, from restricted provision of education; they face a housing crisis and governments underplaying the importance of the climate emergency and intergenerational justice.”

The central promise of democracy is not that the wrong people will be kept out of powerful positions. It is rather that, once their unsuitability becomes clearly evident, they can be removed. With the results of the US mid-term elections that promise has now emphatically been honoured.

But although liberal democracy has had some big recent victories, most of humanity lives outside its scope. This chart, compiled only in 2025, would look a little less depressing now, but only a little.

Nevertheless, there is reason for hope. It has become normal for authoritarian regimes to allow some form of election, however skewed those may be towards the incumbents. Around 80% of the world’s people live in countries that have elections.

Incumbents, drawing up the conditions for those elections, may provide barriers that are intended to exclude opponents. But, with a big enough swing, many of those barriers can be swept aside. The best recent example is Hungary, where Viktor Orbán distorted electoral rules and gave a huge advantage to incumbent parties – which, he assumed, would always be his. He did not predict the surge against him, and now those rules benefit the new incumbents. Orbán’s ruse backfired badly.

It is becoming somewhat more difficult for authoritarian rulers to remain in power indefinitely. If there’s a single lesson from all this, it is that if the demand by the masses for representation, fairness, integrity and competence is strong enough and persistent enough, it can change the world.