📘 Democracy on the Brink: Four Scenarios of Freedom's Erosion in the 21st Century

💬 How Democracy Becomes a Hostage to Its Own Principles – A Series of Analytical Texts on the Challenges Facing Modern Europe and the United States

📝 Introduction

In recent months, I’ve published a series of analytical articles on how democracy – seemingly the best possible form of governance – is increasingly becoming a hostage to its own principles. In a world where information technologies, populism, ideological revanchism, and cultural passivity intertwine, old remedies cease to work. I’ve compiled these four pieces into one comprehensive text because only together do they provide a panoramic view of what's happening. This is not a conspiracy theory; it’s an attempt to piece together a mosaic of disparate yet interconnected observations, based on data from open sources, which helps to reduce the text's tension and make it more reader-friendly.

📖 Chapter 1. Democracy as a Show: How Elections Lose Meaning in the Era of Televised Populism

From Citizen to Electorate: How Democracy Became a Weapon Against Itself

Winston Churchill famously said (in his speech to the House of Commons on November 11, 1947): "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried." And that seems to hold true. But here’s what's often forgotten: democracy is not a sacred cow. It's a tool. And a tool can be used to sculpt the Statue of Liberty or to hack down a prison door.

Before we delve into the degradation of democracy, let's return to its origins – where and why it emerged in the first place. The idea of democracy was born in Ancient Greece, specifically in Athens, around the 5th century BC. This was not democracy in the modern sense: only free male citizens of a certain age, who had served in the army and owned property, could vote. Women, slaves, and metics (foreigners) were excluded. Thus, "people power" encompassed only about 10–15% of the population.

Why did democracy arise in Athens precisely? The answer lies in the city's unique characteristics: developed trade, the influence of a naval power, a strong middle class, and political struggles between the aristocracy and the demos – all these factors necessitated the search for a more flexible form of governance. Athens was among the few places where social tension did not erupt into dictatorship but led to reforms.

Why did the ancient Athenians need democracy? The answer is pragmatic: to manage a city-state amidst constant external threats, conflicts between elites and the populace, and the need to mobilize as many citizens as possible for public life. Democracy became a way to balance political interests – not for the sake of equality, but for efficiency.

A crucial element of Athenian democracy was participation – the ekklesia (popular assembly), the boule (council of five hundred), and the courts, where most positions were filled by lot. This was a way not only to make decisions but also to involve citizens in governance. Democracy in Athens was direct – meaning decisions were made by majority vote in assemblies, without intermediaries.

Rome offered a different model: the republic. There, the emphasis was on a system of checks and balances: the Senate, consuls, and people's tribunes. The right to participate in politics was also limited by citizenship, gender, and property qualifications. But importantly, the Romans already understood that democracy could be institutionalized – embedded within a legal system. Their idea of res publica (public affair) was about responsibility to society, not about the will of the masses. The republic was not a democracy, but a balance between the interests of the nobility and the common people – with a constant desire to control the crowd, rather than listen to it directly.

Thus, the ancients did not create democracy for abstract freedom. They sought a way to govern a complex society where one could not rely solely on the strength of the aristocracy or a single king. Democracy was born as a practice of balance, not as a moral dogma.

In the Middle Ages, democracy almost entirely disappeared. Monarchies, feudalism, and ecclesiastical power left no chance for popular rule. But in some places, the rudiments of future democratic institutions emerged: urban communes in Italy, the Althing in Iceland, elected councils, Magdeburg rights, and the English Parliament. People gradually returned to the idea that power could stem not only from God or blood but also from an agreement among citizens.

A new wave of democratization began during the Enlightenment. Thinkers like Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu proposed a new paradigm: power is not the right of an elite, but a contract between the people and the state. The idea of human rights, the separation of powers, and, finally, universal sovereignty emerged.

However, even here, the expansion of suffrage proceeded slowly and not by the goodwill of the elites. In the 18th and 19th centuries, only propertied men could vote. The working class, women, national minorities, the poor – all of them were outside the system. Only under the pressure of revolutions, uprisings, social changes, and the threat of losing power, did ruling circles begin to open up access to elections.

Each new expansion of suffrage was not a gift from generous rulers, but a forced concession, often made to maintain control. Even women's suffrage in New Zealand (1893), Great Britain (1918–28), and the USA (1920) only came after decades of struggle. And sometimes, violence – suffragettes engaged in direct action, broke windows, threw themselves under horses, served prison sentences, and went on hunger strikes.

And here we are in the 20th and 21st centuries. Democracy as a form of government has become widely accepted. But it is at this very moment that it begins to transform into something else. If previously those directly involved in the functioning of the state voted, now democracy becomes total – everyone votes, but do they understand what for and why?

With the rise of mass culture, social networks, and manipulative technologies, elections turn into a competition of public relations and populism. He who better manages attention wins. And that means it's not democracy that rules, but he who knows how to control it.

Today, under the guise of democracy, those who wish to dismantle it come to power. By deifying popular rule, we forget that history is full of examples where revolutions by the voting populace led to new tyrannies – from the Jacobins to the Nazis. Democracy is not a panacea. It is merely a system that can function differently depending on the conditions and culture of society, and like any tool, it can serve for good or become an elegant means of legitimate self-destruction.

🎬 Transition:

If elections turn into a show, then it’s logical that the media become the directors of this spectacle. The next step is to examine how the media manipulates democracy, presenting its agenda as truth.

📖 Chapter 2. Democracy in the Crosshairs: How the Media Learned to Control the People

The Expansion of Suffrage: A Path to Freedom or a Dead End?

If democracy is a tool, as we established in the first article, then suffrage is its blade. Sharp, politically charged, and often directed not where the voter himself thinks. Today, we'll examine how the expansion of this right influenced the destinies of states. Spoiler alert: not always for the better.

✨ 1. Britain: When the Bourgeois Went to the Polls

In the 19th century, the United Kingdom was an arena of struggle between the aristocracy and a new force – the industrial bourgeoisie. The Reform Act of 1832 became a watershed: not only landowners but also factory owners began to gain votes. This was not a revolution; it was a cold-blooded redistribution of power to prevent a real revolution. More voters meant more legitimacy. More legitimacy meant less risk of rebellion. In the economy, the era of liberalism began, but tempered by common sense. However, this was only the first step: reforms followed in 1867 and 1884.

📉 2. France: The Pendulum of Revolutions

In France, suffrage expanded with far greater drama. After the Great French Revolution, "the power of the people" was sometimes declared absolute, sometimes shot down on the barricades. Women gained the right to vote only in 1944 – and only truly began voting in 1945. Men, however, experienced so many regime changes that the Fifth Republic (the current one) became an attempt to finally stabilize democracy. The expansion of suffrage here often meant a transition from one unstable form of power to another. And no stable economic model was guaranteed by it.

🇺🇸 3. USA: From Property to Popcorn

In the USA, initially, only white male property owners could vote. Then, simply white men. Then, all men (but not immediately). Then, women. Then, African Americans (in practice, with huge restrictions until the 1960s). The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a breakthrough, removing key obstacles for Black voters. With each stage of suffrage expansion, America became more inclusive – and simultaneously more vulnerable to populism. The television era turned elections into a spectacle, and the internet into a marketing hell. By expanding access to the ballot box, the country increasingly faces the problem that voting becomes an emotional click, not a conscious choice.

🌏 4. Colonies and Post-Empires: Democracy in the Tropics and Steppes

When India gained independence, it quickly adopted a democratic constitution – one of the few countries where democracy took root. As a result, the world's largest democracy still lives on the edge between electoral freedom and caste culture. South Africa after apartheid is another example: the expansion of rights was necessary, but it led to an explosive rise in corruption. In the post-Soviet space, suffrage appeared instantly – as a mechanism without an instruction manual. Oligarchs, clans, pseudo-parties – all this quickly turned democracy into an imitation.

💸 5. Economy and Electorate: Who Benefits?

Every new voter is a potential recipient of benefits, subsidies, and payments. Politicians understand: it's easier to promise pensions and allowances than reforms and investments. But in countries where the right to vote expanded slowly and consciously (for example, in Scandinavia), democracy functions as a system of accountability. Where access to elections became universal suddenly – democracy often turns into an auction of populism. The key difference lies in the institutions that restrain the desires of the masses and discipline power.

📜 6. Germany: Elections in Favor of a Dictator

The example of the Weimar Republic shows that the democratic mechanism itself does not guarantee stability. It was in the 1933 elections that the majority supported Hitler. Expanded suffrage without a political culture and an irresponsible press led to the collapse of democracy and a catastrophe for the entire world.

🤔 Conclusion: Not a Right, But a Tactic

The expansion of suffrage is not always a path to freedom. Sometimes, it is a way to replace one elite with another. Or to entrench a new system of manipulation. A vote is a powerful tool, but it doesn't work without awareness. And mass voting without responsibility is a roulette game where the future is at stake.

As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "the power of the people can be as despotic as the power of one man." Democracy is a delicate matter. And the more people who vote, the greater the responsibility of those who grant them access to the ballot box.

🎯 Transition:

When the mechanisms of information are detached from accountability, and elections from meaning, the system becomes vulnerable to attacks. Trump is a figure on whom this manifested particularly clearly. Let's see why.

📖 Chapter 3. Democracy Against Trump: Why the System Feared Its Own Choice

🎯 Democracy as Technology: How Electoral Rules Were Changed in the USA for Power

The USA was not born as a democracy, but as an elite club – beautiful, powerful, and exclusive. At the very beginning, only white men could vote, and not all of them, but only those who owned land or paid taxes. Women, slaves, the poor, indigenous peoples – this multi-million mass existed, but in the electoral system, it was a statistical error. The first American elections were something like an auction among gentlemen: which of us, wealthy and enlightened, will lead the nation forward. And, frankly, it worked back then.

But then the 19th century arrived, and things began to change. First, the property qualification was abolished. Then – slavery. Then, in 1870, the 15th Amendment was passed, promising voting rights to Black men. It promised, but it didn't guarantee: the American South quickly invented a host of stratagems to prevent Black people from voting. Literacy tests, poll taxes, sudden changes in polling place locations – imagination knew no bounds. These methods were particularly actively used by the "Dixiecrats" – Southern segregationist Democrats who fiercely defended racial hierarchy. Paradoxically, Republicans were more often on the side of justice at that time.

Then came the 19th Amendment (1920), opening polling stations to women. Although the Democratic party generally did not strongly oppose it, it was its Southern representatives who again held back. But by the mid-20th century, everything began to change. The Democratic party realized: if you want to stay in power, start working with those you previously ignored. African Americans, Latinos, the poor, women, students. All of them became the new target. Thus, the modern American strategy of "identity politics" was born. Don't unite, but divide, speak to each group separately, promise what they want to hear. Preferably – right before an election.

In 1993, the Motor Voter Act was passed, allowing people to register to vote simultaneously with obtaining a driver's license. This simplified the process, but it was under Obama that a real procedural shift occurred. He became a symbol of a new coalition: youth, minorities, women, urban liberals. And he perfectly understood that the game was not just on the field of ideas, but also on the field of procedures. During his presidency, an active liberalization of voter registration began. More NGOs, fewer identity verification requirements, registration at rallies, universities, online. All this looked like a triumph of democracy. But critics rightly pointed out: if you don't verify who is voting, you lose control over the very essence of elections.

Obama, however, acted skillfully. He didn't break the system; he evolved it in the desired direction. Support for migrants, amnesties, deferred deportations – all of this was not just humanitarianism, but also a political strategy. After all, every migrant is a potential voter. Even if they don't vote today, they will vote tomorrow. Or at least their children. And who will tell these children whom to vote for – you can guess.

Meanwhile, Republicans began to realize they were losing control. The response was laws requiring ID, a fight against mail-in voting, and purging voter rolls. Democrats objected, saying it was an attempt to stifle democracy. Republicans countered: democracy is not chaos, but order. And while some fought for access to the ballot box, others fought for its transparency. Courts, commissions, Senate hearings came into play – America turned into a battlefield not for an idea, but for a procedure.

Donald Trump, as the 45th president, and now, since January 20, 2025, back in the White House as the 47th, made the fight against democratic electoral schemes his main domestic agenda. His administration actively promotes voting reform: tightening control over registration, canceling automatic ballot distribution, limiting access for NGOs funded by left-wing foundations. For him, this is not just a struggle for power, but an attempt to return politics to its foundation – popular will, not manipulation.

At the same time, criticism of the media intensified. The media, once performing the function of a watchdog for democracy, today increasingly act as an ideological mouthpiece. And if earlier newsrooms fought for audience and facts, now they fight for the agenda and loyalty to the Democratic Party. The paradox: democracy is defended with propaganda, and elections are won with algorithms. The growing influence of digital platforms and the merger of media corporations have only intensified this transformation.

Currently in the USA, elections increasingly resemble a marketing campaign. Who collects better databases, who drives more traffic, who draws district maps more cunningly. And when procedure becomes more important than meaning – that’s no longer democracy, but its glossy cover. Voting has become easier. But has it gotten better?

America has changed the rules of the game (as researchers note, for example, in works on political sociology, this is where the discussion begins to encompass not only facts but also journalistic assessments). And although it still speaks the language of freedom, in practice it increasingly uses the language of political technology. Today, it’s not the one who offers the future who wins here, but the one who more effectively manages the present. In a country where millions vote but cannot explain why – it’s not an idea that wins, but an algorithm. And perhaps this is democracy in the 21st century?

🕌 Transition:

But there’s a deeper challenge – not one person, not one media outlet, but an entire ideology that uses democracy to abolish it. This is precisely what the fourth and perhaps most important part is about.

📖 Chapter 4. Democracy Under Siege: How Islamism Uses Elections to Transform Europe

🕌 Democracy Under Siege: How Islamism Uses Elections to Transform Europe

Europe loves to repeat that democracy is its pride, the legacy of the Enlightenment, and its main export commodity. But in the 21st century, it faces a paradox: open doors and voting rights, intended to strengthen freedom, are becoming instruments of its destruction. Especially in cases where these principles are used not for integration at all, but for revanchism. And not an abstract one, but a historically meaningful one – as a continuation of an ideological conflict that Islamism lost in battle but began to win at the polls.

📜 History knows many attempts at Islamic expansion into Europe. The Ottoman Empire besieged Vienna, Saracens controlled Sicily and southern Spain, and in the 20th century, North Africa became a geopolitical field of post-colonial grievances. But if expansion previously occurred through armies and conquests, now it’s far more subtle. Islamism, as an ideology, has begun to use democratic mechanisms – migration, elections, freedom of speech – as a set of tools for influence.

❗️ It's important to clarify: this refers not to Islam as a religion, but to Islamism as a political ideology that seeks to subjugate the system to its norms by using the very tools of democracy. This is a crucial distinction to avoid generalizations and to respect the millions of loyal European citizens of Muslim origin.

🧠 This is not an abstract fear but a strategy. It has long been discussed in analytical circles in Europe and the USA. According to a number of researchers, it is a long-term tactic based on three pillars: demography, human rights rhetoric, and electoral pressure. Mass migration from the Middle East and North African countries, bolstered by generous social benefits and soft naturalization, forms stable electoral clusters. And in some countries, these clusters are already beginning to dictate the agenda.

🌍 There are enough examples. In Sweden – urban areas where Swedish laws formally apply, but daily life is governed by Sharia. For example, reports by the Swedish Police and the European Institute for the Prevention of Radicalization (EUROPOL, 2020) mention areas in the suburbs of Malmö and Gothenburg where instances of unofficial religious justice and pressure on women based on cultural norms different from Swedish laws are recorded. In Germany – political entities such as the Muslim Democratic Union (MDU), registered in Berlin and positioning itself as a party reflecting the interests of the Muslim community. Although officially separate from religious structures, a number of German media outlets and researchers point to its close ties with Islamic leaders, including the participation of individual imams in the party's advisory councils. The influence of religious structures is also observed through DITIB (Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs), where, according to a study by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, imams sent from Turkey actively participate in shaping public opinion among migrant communities. The influence of religious structures is also seen through DITIB and figures like Murat Gül, who are actively involved in public and political life. In the Netherlands – the DENK party, which promotes the interests of immigrant communities. In France – mayors, originating from Islamist organizations, publicly advocating for community autonomy. In Belgium – parliamentary discussions on the right to "honor killings" in families. In Turkey – the case of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who began his political career as mayor of Istanbul, promoting secular rhetoric, but subsequently led the Islamization of the country through democratic institutions.

🚫 The problem is not that Muslims participate in elections. The problem is that some political structures rooted in Islamism do not recognize the basic values of democracy: gender equality, freedom of religion, separation of church and state. They use voting as a Trojan horse – to get inside and close the gates.

📉 The collapse of multiculturalism policy is a recognized fact. German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated this back in 2010: "This [multicultural] approach has failed, utterly failed.” Since then, similar statements have been made by UK leader David Cameron (2011): "State multiculturalism has failed,” and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. According to analysts, the Netherlands is also recognizing the failure of multicultural integration, amidst the rise of parallel communities. French researcher Sami Naïr noted that suburbs are turning into closed societies where radicalization proceeds unhindered, under the guise of social isolation.

🧩 Yet, at the practical level, the same inertia continues: money for integration, benefits for tolerance, ignoring problems in "ghettos." In such areas, a parallel reality emerges: Sharia laws, imams' courts, forcing women to wear headscarves, pressure on apostates. This is not integration, but a parallel value system that clashes with the foundations of liberal democracy.

⚖️ And all of this happens by the rules of democracy. Legally. Through voting. With the support of human rights defenders and European courts. It turns out that democracy has become a mechanism that allows undemocratic ideologies to penetrate the system without sharing its fundamental values. Especially when political elites are afraid to speak directly about it, lest they be accused of Islamophobia.

📈 Meanwhile, reality accumulates facts. With each decade, the proportion of migrants in the population grows. Entire neighborhoods appear in cities where the birth rate exceeds the country's average by 2–3 times. According to Pew Research, by 2050, the Muslim population of Europe could reach 14% with high migration. And this means – in 10–15 years, these children will become voters. And in another 20 – deputies, ministers, legislators. And then democracy will be asked: are you ready to submit to those who do not recognize you?

🧨 This is not a conspiracy theory. These are statistics and open statements. Some representatives of Islamist organizations explicitly state the goal of creating Islamic enclaves. And in several European countries, discussions are already underway about recognizing elements of Sharia as local legislation. Under the pretext of "cultural diversity" and "communities' right to self-governance," ideas that contradict the very essence of democracy are being slipped in. A vivid example is the Charlie Hebdo case, when the editorial office of the satirical magazine, which published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, became the target of a terrorist attack in 2015. This event became a turning point in the discussion about the limits of freedom of speech and the role of democracy in countering radicalism, showing how vulnerable liberal values can be in the face of ideological violence when democratic society proved unable to protect basic freedom of speech against radical pressure.

🛡 If Europe does not develop an adaptive filter – cultural, legal, political – it risks turning into an arena of radical change. Democracy requires protection. Not through prohibitions, but through rules. Not through discrimination, but through a compatibility check. Otherwise, it will turn out that the right to vote will have to be paid for with the right to be oneself.

✅ Conclusion

Four chapters – behind which stand three key challenges to democracy: the substitution of ideas with manipulation, vulnerability to populism, and the use of democratic tools for undemocratic ends. Four different narratives, but the essence is the same: democracy is not a constant, but a living system. It can be protected, but it cannot be preserved automatically. We live in an era when democracy demands not only voting but also maturity, not only freedom but also responsibility. And if we don't reassemble the principles on which it stands, then the next chapters won't be written by us.

📎 Thank you to everyone who read to the end. If these topics are important to you – share, discuss, and most importantly, think for yourself.

🔗 Links to original publications on Telegram:

https://t.me/rubin_tbc/20738

https://t.me/rubin_tbc/20760

https://t.me/rubin_tbc/20770

https://t.me/rubin_tbc/20812