To start, Dr. Shah’s article deserves a careful read.
theloop.ecpr.eu/understanding-democracys-contentious-outcomes-as-a-legitimising-force/
Dr. Shah has written a brave op-ed about democracy and the liberal agenda. She reached the responsible conclusion but after some hand-wringing.
In the end, she delicately concludes that the democratic will of the people has to be respected even when it chooses disruptive and strong-willed egotists. Her article echoes the debate in Nineteenth-Century America between the supporters and detractors of the populism then called Jacksonian democracy.
Today’s equivalent of President Jackson’s critics have found a surprising modern cause. Citizen assemblies appear as a reaction to elections’ producing “populist” outcomes. These self-proclaimed democratic bodies aim less to bring “the people” closer to the decision-making process, than those “enthusiastic for change,” but lack the time, money, or popularity to run for office.
As Shah points out, the renowned Adam Przeworski (NYU) and others warn about extrapolating the election of populists (conservatives) into some weakening of the ideals of a democratic state. Of course, a core tenet of democracy is that precisely these details for a just society are in the beholder’s eye.
On a practical level, democracy slows down the pace of change in order to garner a workable majority for it. In doing so, the process smoothes out rough spots. That trait brought 18th Century UK Tories into the democratic fold.
First, elections do not guarantee the elected automatically impose their policy agenda. The elected earn the right to propose legislation that could become legal reality.
Second, the process of research and debate to reach majority support inevitably planes off empirically suspect and socially divisive policies – to the frustration of reformers if all hues.
Third, while democratic discussion focuses on new policy, the responsibility of the elected is to manage the finances of what’s already in place.
A truism is that money is policy. With all governments’ (left, right, and centre) increasingly running deficits, “policy funds” must be covered by borrowing. The policy message of borrowing is “we like bankers and investors and want to help them by giving them secure, high dividend, investment opportunities.” Debt constrains change as much as Jeremiads from left and right.
Dr. Shah has written an important plea for open minds in the current climate and groupthink. The test of tolerance will come when dealing with examples. Leave aside the enormity of the American politics. Central Europe will likely present the elections that clarify how national populism and international liberalism may co-exist.
It will be messy, but that is democratic pluralism.