Is the American system of constitutional democracy breaking down? And if so, why? Some analysts call attention to the contempt the Trump administration, President Donald Trump himself and his appointees hold for the constitution and the limitations it imposes on the executive. Others cite extremism: Rather than an institutional explanation, they focus on popular sentiment. Major segments of the American population have drawn to extreme explanations, often far-fetched conspiracies, to account for political developments. Americans have become so polarized, so alienated from one another, that some now favor violence as a means of achieving their aims.

Not long ago, the public received its news from roughly the same outlets — the same radio, television and print media. This is no longer the case. Over the last few decades, mass communication channels have expanded so that today, television, radio and print media serve to isolate one segment of the population from another.

Technology, grievance and political violence

To compound the problem of “echo chamber” news outlets, there is the great variety of Internet-based platforms that allow individual users to issue threats and hurl insults at their perceived enemies anonymously, without fear of retaliation or exposure. The effect of these outlets for the expression of grievance and resentment amounts to an invitation to political violence. Illustratively, on August 3, 2019, a young man named Patrick Wood Crusius, walked into a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas, and murdered 23 shoppers he assumed to be Hispanic. The shooter wrote a manifesto on the popular platform, 8chan, which explained his motive: He drew inspiration from online depictions of the Christchurch, New Zealand, murders of Muslim worshippers at two mosques two months prior. In that instance, the murderer had also issued his own online manifesto.

As the Christchurch murders show, the problem is hardly confined to the United States. Freedom House, which compiles a composite measure of “freedom in the world” on an annual basis for over 100 countries, reports that in 2024, civil liberties and civil rights declined for the 18th consecutive year. Furthermore, political violence is increasingly common even in the world’s democracies, particularly in the lead-up to and following national balloting.

Democracy’s fragility in historical perspective

Political observers commonly treat the decline of democracy in the US and elsewhere as aberrations. Often, their assumption appears to be that in the normal course of things, democratic government represents the culmination of historical development. They believe history leads inexorably toward democracy and deviations represent temporary setbacks on the long-term democratic path.

In fact, over the course of human history, democracies have tended to come and go. The political experiments with democracy in Latin America — Brazil or Argentina, for example — or post-independence Africa, such as Nigeria or Kenya, illustrate this.

Democracy in the US seems to have lasted longer than most democratic experiments, from 1776, the Declaration of Independence, or 1789, when the Constitution took effect, to 2025. The relative longevity of American democracy may be explained by the fact that the country’s founders did what they could to insulate the new institutions from the popular will. The constitution provided for a chief executive, Senate and federal judiciary whose members were not directly chosen by the people. James Madison and the other drafters of the Constitution were well aware of the historical experience with popular rule. Over the decades, though, much of what the founders worried about came true. Institutions that Madison, John Adams and others sought to insulate from popular control are now subject to the will of the people.

Why do democracies appear to be short-lived? The answer may be found in the works of the ancient Greek philosophers. They believed that reason was the single attribute distinguishing humans from other living creatures. It followed from this perception that governments should be ruled through reason, not impulse, emotion or passion.

The ability to reason, though, is not evenly distributed in any human population or polity. Some people are better endowed with the ability to reason clearly than others. The former should play the leading role in governing.

Periodically, one form or another of elite, aristocratic or monarchical rule would give way to government by the citizenry. Democratic government would usher in a period during which people would be too easily driven by their emotions and passions rather than reasoned discourse. Under these circumstances, political figures would sometimes surface who had the ability to harness popular feelings of grievance, envy and resentment. Enter the demagogue.

Democracy would then give way to rule by demagogues. According to this understanding, demagogues possessed the ability to direct the people in directions they wished to lead them. Eventually, the rule of rabble-rousing demagogues would give way to tyrannical government. Law and reason would be replaced by the whim and caprice of the tyrant whose rule knew no bounds — at least, for a while.

We should remember that the ancient Greek understanding of time differs from our own. Their view was drawn from nature and, among other things, the passage of the seasons. Just as the seasons come and go — fall, winter, spring and summer — so too with human political life. One type of government would give way to another in an apparently endless cycle of birth, death and renewal.

So, if American democracy gives way to some type of authoritarian rule, we should not be astonished if it reappears later in the country’s cycle of political development.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.