The foundations of democracy are shaking — here is what we can do about it

According to a Washington Post story and a study by Freedom House, “Democracy and pluralism are under assault.” What can we do to help stabilize democracy? What is a way forward for the fundamental principle that built the west as we know it?

Dating back to Plato, there have always been common critiques about the weaknesses of democracy. The two main points, from my experience, are that the people will elect someone who follows their whims, unconcerned about the actual problems. The second one is the fact that politics often deals with topics that are hard to explain and comprehend for the layperson — such as modern economics or the entire corpus of the law.

Both these points of contention are not made up but are, instead, openly visibly in current day-to-day politics. The election of Donald J. Trump as 45th president of the United States of America is an example of the first point, where one can argue that the American people voted based on a perceived threat more than on an actual problem.

If we agree that such failures occur and that we still want to maintain a dedication to democracy and the ideals of liberty and equality contained in it, we need to find solutions for these pitfalls. An essential first step is to try and identify the problem as well as possible before proposing solutions.

For example: When Britain voted for the Brexit in a referendum, the majority of pro-Brexit voters were clearly above the average age of the British population. As a consequence, there were arguments along the line: “Elderly people don’t have to endure the consequences as much as we younger people do, the outcome of the election is therefore unfair to us and we should make the decision, not them.”

Not only is the logic in this argument false, but the sentiment behind it is also profoundly undemocratic. One could make a similar case that children should design the school system since they have to go through it, rich people should write the tax-code since they pay most, and criminals should decide how the law works since they get judged by it.

Also: If life expectancy plays a role, should your vote as a younger member of the electorate be removed if you get hit by a bus tomorrow and die? All this makes no sense. However, the argument was very present when the election happened. As stated above, we should try to find the deeper reason behind the sentiment of something being unfair.

One core issue expressed many times in polls and, finally, at the ballot box, in that case, was, a fear of alienation, the country overrun by foreigners, a process enabled by the EU. The second one was the supposed toll membership in the EU took on the British financial household. Similar fears where voiced at every Trump rally during the 2016 election and ever since: The fear of Mexican criminals invading the United States and the threat of the socialist agenda of the democratic party that supposedly had or has gotten out of control. The easy way out would be to dismiss these points as fearmongering, as lies that play to the subconscious xenophobia and stupidity of the uninformed masses. That mindset, however, will not offer a way forward since it provides no way to help those who have fallen for populist traps to recover from them. It is unlikely to make a flat-earth theorist change their mind by yelling at them that they are stupid for falling for that lie. It might even strengthen their resolve based on a sunk-cost-fallacy. “I have already endured all this public shaming, so I might as well believe it.” We have a hard time giving something up for which we have fought.

In my opinion, the base of most of these recent populist successes is the inability of untrained debaters to defend against fraud. In an argument, there are two main ways of leading someone to believe a lie: To lie about facts or to mislead through argumentation techniques.

Lies today have many shapes. They are called fake news and alternative facts, and they are supposed to be that one big flaw of social media. Supposedly we are bombarded with so much information that it is hard to tell the good from the bad and that this would somehow make lying easier. But I wonder if that is correct because fact-checking doesn’t work without sufficient information either. While only serious journalists published articles in the 60s, there were no Wikipedia and open access studies available to check if what they wrote was correct. The job of these journalists was considerably much harder, which doesn’t imply they automatically did a better job, too.

I, therefore, believe that we should demand qualities in the reader, not the writer. Lies about facts in politics often come down to mathematical statements — numbers of illegal immigrants, costs, rates of growth, or deterioration. Basic understanding of maths is essential to dismantling such lies. Understanding percentages and comprehending orders of magnitude and scale are crucial if one attempts to prioritize issues.

For example: Between 2010 and 2018, the number of immigrants from the Americas to the United States has increased by 1.3 million people. At the same time, however, this group has become a smaller share in the immigrant population. That means that much more immigration from other regions has taken place. One could easily conjure up an image of a wave of 1.3 million people walking across the border, similar to some zombie apocalypse imagery. But currently, there are 310 large cities in the US with more than 100.000 inhabitants. The 1.3 million immigrants came across a timespan of 8 years. If we do the maths, that’s almost precisely ten people per large city per week. By no means is that a fear-inducing image, but it requires an understanding of scales.

The second, and more devious, method stated above is using special techniques to make someone believe in a lie. There are several examples of this:

• Ad hominem: This technique uses the reputation of a person to prove or disprove an argument. Examples would be: “I am a successful businessman. Therefore my argument about the economy is correct”. How absurd this concept is can be shown by this example: “Hitler said two plus two equals four — that means it is wrong.” An argument is right if it is sound, not if we like the person making it, and it is wrong if it has a flaw, not if we dislike the person making it.
• Ad nauseam: The German propaganda minister during the 3rd Reich, Joseph Goebbels, is credited the quote: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” Repetition convinces people of statements, and even if they don’t believe the repeated statement, their beliefs will slightly shift into that direction. Also, if you don’t subscribe to a notion uttered ad nauseam on Fox News, you will still begin thinking about the question if it might be an issue.
• Straw-manning: In debates with little or no moderation, this technique is nearly omnipresent. If the argument of an opponent is hard to disprove, one constructs an easy-to-refute version of it. Next, one makes counterarguments against the weak version instead of the original one. We call this pattern building a strawman. “So you are saying…” is a famous phrase used to sneak the strawman into a debate.

You have undoubtedly seen all of these used many times, but it can be hard to diagnose them without a clear concept. For me, such a classification of techniques was immensely useful to notice them in real-time. It makes the difference between knowing an argument is weak, and being able to pinpoint why. Once I see one of these, I also become cautious about other statements made by the same person. If you find these fascinating, I can only recommend the Wikipedia-entry about Logical fallacies.

If the goal is to counteract these techniques on a societal level, the only option, in my opinion, is education. A good maths education, especially concerning percentages, and exercises in debate and principles thereof, are essential to prepare children to deal with complex topics and potentially biased commentators.

The questions up for debate on today’s political stages are undoubtedly complex and demanding of preparation and knowledge. We should, therefore, make sure that they are led on that basis and not decided based on logical fallacies and lies. These methods have to be outlawed by society as a whole, by creating a consensus that they are not acceptable and training every member of the electorate to deal with them. Classification of an argument as a strawman or an ad hominem attack is independent of political opinion or belief, independent of party and creed. The alternative would be a regression to autocracy, the restriction of the right to vote, and resignation on the goal to enable everyone to participate in the development of a better future.

All hope is not lost — the problems described above are only beginning to arise. As our collective ability to uphold democratic traditions begins to look weak, we should invest more in education to counteract this trend. Democracy is not god-given. Many countries are successful with it because it provides a path to harmony via consensus. We see tensions rising in the west because the ability to find common ground fails, and this is a direct consequence of lacking standards in a debate of any kind. It will be a long way to rebuild those standards and to enshrine them once again as a societal value, but we will feel their impact in our daily interactions with one another.