How do you respond to those who don’t believe in democracy?
The appalling scenes from the USA, as Trump supporters stormed Capitol Hill, show how fragile democracy is. This situation presents a challenge to moderates: how to respond to those who do not believe in democracy?
Those who demand that the election of Joe Biden be overturned because it has been ‘stolen’ are wrong. But this is the easy bit. You are wrong if you lose an election and so try to overturn the whole democratic system, using violence to threaten, bully and intimidate those who are doing their duty in allowing that system to function. The dilemmas that moderates, in fact all those who believe in democracy, come earlier and are far less clear cut.
Donald Trump was lawfully elected as president of the USA in 2016. Some of those opposed to him wanted that election overturned, felt that he was not a suitable person to hold the office of president. But he won the Republican primary and the general election. He was lawfully elected so those who sought to prevent him taking office after his victory, or later remove him, were undermining democracy, even though they thought he would be a disaster and could foresee what was to come. What blame must they take, who allowed his election or those who opposed it even after his victory?
Could Trump have been stopped earlier? Could Republicans have done more during the primary process to beat him or prevent him winning? I do not know the process well enough, but given that he was massively outspent by Jeb Bush and won fairly I don’t see what could have been done to stop him taking office.
Then, having been elected surely, he had to be given every chance to implement what he was elected to do? Is opposing him during his time in office undermining democracy? Surely not, because politicians oppose each other all the time. That is how politics works. Whether the extent to which he was opposed was ultimately self-defeating is a different matter. It certainly looks that way given the rise of hyper-partisanship in the United States and the Democrats net loss of House of Representative seats in the year they won the presidency. The rise of Trump has arguably resulted in a more extreme and partisan Democratic Party, rather than a drive to the moderate centre. In many ways Biden is the exception that proves the rule, derided for being too moderate yet then winning from the centre while the Democrats lost elsewhere.
This more radical element on the left of American politics can be seen in the justification, or in some cases active support for, the violence and riots around the Black Lives Matter movement during the summer of 2020. Because if one side justifies violence, they open that door to the other. So surely moderates must reject ALL political violence, whether on ‘their’ side or not.
In the United Kingdom the reaction to the Brexit vote opened the door to the undermining of democracy. If you start attempting to overturn one democratic vote, what is to stop the undermining, or indeed overturning, of other democratic decisions?
So how should moderates respond? Should they engage with elected leaders who they fear are demagogues or wannabe-dictators? Should they oppose them and risk alienating those on the winning side, increasing partisanship? Can they engage them and seek to moderate them? Should they accept the results of elections they believe to be disasters, or oppose them and undermine democracy itself?
It is easy enough to criticise those around Trump who support his lies and deceit, often to raise their own profile and ensure they have an audience. Those who have condoned his claims that the election was rigged, who have incited violence on his behalf have undermined democracy. Their cynicism should not mean they escape their due criticism. But should those who hold elected office be removed under the law, or do we rely on the voters to do it?
What should be done about the likes of Ted Cruz, still backing Trump, and seeking to undermine and overturn a legitimate vote even as they stand amidst the shattered glass of the attempted coup/riot (depending on your politics)? Another question is around access to social media. There is a legitimate debate around what is and is not allowed on Twitter, a private company, use of which is a privilege rather than a right. But if Trump is not allowed, should Iran be able to refer to Israel as a “malignant cancerous tumour” that must be “removed and eradicated”? Where is the line, who gets to decide, and who will enforce it?
What happened in Washington was wrong. Seeking a second referendum to overturn a first is not the same as trying to stage an armed insurrection. The point is that democracy is fragile, and more fragile when all sides are chipping away at it. No one should pretend that the response from moderates is easy or risk free. This post is not to propose a solution, rather it is to call for caution when faced with those offering easy, simple solutions themselves.
Martin Rogers
