The secret to strengthening democracy and its institutions

There are many good models to help both developing and industrialized countries build better democratic institutions. But with failed attempts to draft a new Constitution, Chile is offering a lesson in what to avoid.

Although it is one of the richest countries in Latin America, Chile continues to suffer the legacy of the brutal dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet and historical inequalities. The country has made some progress in building democratic institutions since the 1988 plebiscite, which began the transition from authoritarianism to democracy, and education and social programs have reduced income inequality.

But major problems remain. There are deep inequalities not only in income, but also in access to government services, high-quality educational resources and opportunities in the labor market. Furthermore, Chile still has the Constitution that Pinochet imposed in 1980.

(You may be interested: Prince Harry will receive 'substantial' compensation from the media)

However, although it seems natural to start over, Chile has done so in the wrong direction. Following a referendum in 2020 that showed overwhelming support for drafting a new Constitution, the process was entrusted to a convention of elected delegates. But only 43 percent of voters turned out for the 2021 election to choose the members of the constituent assembly, and many of the candidates who were elected belonged to extreme left circles with strong ideological commitments to draft a Constitution that would crack down on companies and establish a vision of new and broad rights for different communities . When the resulting document was put to a vote, 62 percent of Chileans rejected it.

A second attempt repeated the same failures, only from the other direction. A right-wing majority in the new convention, clearly emboldened by the public reaction to the first version, drafted a Constitution that was also rejected due to the perception that it went too far (this time in the opposite direction from the first time).

This experience should sound familiar, because Chile is not the only country where an activist body has pushed for measures that a majority of voters oppose. Similar episodes are occurring around the world – including in the United States – and trust in institutions is suffering.

Give results

Can support for democracy be rebuilt? My recent work with Nicolás Ajzenman, Cevat Aksoy, Martin Fiszbein and Carlos Molina may provide some clues. For example, We find that people who have experience with democratic institutions tend to support them, but only if they believe that democracies achieve the kind of economic results, public services and other results they expect.

(More: European Commission says Putin lied in Tucker Carlson interview)

What people seem to want from democracies is revealing. Support for democracy declines during economic crises, wars or other periods of instability, and improves when the public enjoys the benefits of good public services, low inequality and limited or no corruption. The lessons seem clear. If we want to build a better democracy, we must start with the ability of democratic institutions to deliver what people want.

With inequality rising in many countries and the power of global corporations rising, It is reasonable for democracies to offer more redistribution and stronger protections to disadvantaged groups. But again, the right and the left will do it in different ways.

In the case of Chile, the left's hardline anti-business agenda seems ill-advised. A better alternative is the model pioneered by the social democratic parties of Scandinaviawho came to power after the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, when there was a palpable need for major institutional and policy changes to restore the health of the economy and curb inequality.

Nordic history

There are many misperceptions about the origins of Nordic social democracy. While some commentators seem to believe that these countries were always predisposed toward equality and cooperation, others see them as “democratic socialist” models. Neither perception seems to be true. Both Sweden and Norway were very unequal at the beginning of the 20th century.

(Also: What can happen between Ecuador and Russia if Quito delivers Soviet weapons to the US?)

In 1930 in Norway, before changes in tax collection by a social democratic government, the Gini coefficient (a measure of inequality on a scale of zero to one) It was 0.57, meaning it was more unequal than anywhere in Latin America today.
​
Labor conflicts were also frequent in both countries. The labor parties that later became social democratic parties were rooted in Marxism. But by the time they came to power, they had begun to move away from their previous commitments to revolution and rigid ideology. Instead, they campaigned under a broad umbrella, promising sound macroeconomic management and egalitarian labor market and education reform.

For its part, The Norwegian Labor Party made a U-turn and abandoned its hardline Marxist program after its poor showing in the 1930 Norwegian elections. Like the Danish and Swedish labor parties of the time, it refocused its focus on more practical issues, pursuing policies that people wanted. The party also promised a major educational reform to improve the quality of teaching in rural areas that were being left behind. After returning to power in 1935, the party rushed to implement its 'Popular Schools Law' the following year.

(Keep reading: The surprising testimony that broke out in the Madeleine McCann case)

In recent work with Tuomas Pekkarinen, Kjell Salvanes and Matti Sarvimäki, we show that Norway's school reform did more than improve the quality of rural education. It also had a profound effect on Norwegian politics, because many of those who benefited from the reform (starting with parents) switched their allegiances to the Labor Party, thus helping to create the coalition that would sustain Norway's now famous model of social democracy. Simply put, the party provided the services that voters wanted, and voters rewarded it with electoral support.

The Swedish case is very similar. After his first electoral victory in 1932, The Swedish Social Democratic Party kept its promise of higher wages, industrial peace and a stable macroeconomic environment. He then he was rewarded at the polls for decades to come.

There are lessons here for those who want to strengthen democracy and build new institutions to combat inequality and protect the disadvantaged. The first step must be to demonstrate that democracy works by forging a reformist agenda that manages to provide services to the population. Attempts to impose extremist policies (left or right) on voters are doomed to fail, and are likely to further reduce trust in democratic institutions.

DARON ACEMOGLU
© PROJECT SYNDICATE
BOSTON

Professor at the MIT Institute of Economics. He is co-author, with Simon Johnson, of 'What it takes to build democratic institutions, power and progress' (Public Affairs, 2023).

EFE / Social networks In 2024, the largest global electoral cycle in history will be held: Some 4 billion have been or are being called to the polls to participate in more than 80 elections:

without a doubt a great test for democracy. In America, in addition to the strategic US elections in November, Nayib Bukele has already been re-elected in El Salvador (February 4), and Leaders will be elected in Panama (May 5), the Dominican Republic (May 12), Mexico

(June 2) and Uruguay (October 27).

(More: Why Taylor Swift could influence the 2024 US elections?)In Latin America, the most important presidential elections would be those of Venezuela
which should be held in December, but still have no official date.

In addition, there will be regional elections in Brazil (October 6) and Chile (October 27). Apart from that there is expectation for the 'four horsemen' who have been accused of promoting the 'democratic apocalypse':polarization, populism, loss of trust and misinformation

in our region the big question centers on whether the trend imposed after the pandemic will continue, since of the 20 elections held since 2019, the vast majority have voted for change, and in only three has continuity prevailed ( Nicaragua, 2021; Paraguay, 2023, and El Salvador, 2024). The other big question is which ideological trend will predominate: The latest World Values ​​Survey predicts that

“liberties” will outweigh the “desire for equality” with few exceptions. Warning signs about the health of democracy abound. According to the most recent Latinobarómetro, less than half of Latin Americans,48 percent say democracy is “preferable to any other form of government”

while 45 percent either “do not care” or think that “in some circumstances an authoritarian government may be preferable to a democratic one.”

(Also: 'A slander': Amlo reacts to accusations that drug traffickers gave money to his campaign)In the Open Society democracy barometer, which interviewed more than 36,000 people in 30 countries, 86 percent of respondents say they prefer to live in a democratic state and 62 percent believe that democracy is the best form of government possible. Howeverin the 18 to 35 age group this last percentage falls to 55 percent

42 percent believe that a military regime is a good way to govern a country and 35 percent are in favor of a “strong” leader who dispenses with elections and parliament.