On the alleged "fragility" of democracy

Many people tend to think of the world from their point of view. As an example, bigots sometimes think that group X has something wrong with them, until they actually meet someone from group X, and realise that their bigotry is wrong. That person often then arrogantly assumes that the problem is solved, not realising that many other people likely share that bigotry, and the victim of their hate (whether conscious or not, it is hate - and bigotry is not too strong a word) has likely experienced it from others, so they will have a weary, seen-it-all-before contempt to the reformed bigot who thinks the reformed bigot deserves a medal. 

This sort of bias also applies to people who think "good things" - for example, I've heard people claim certain groups are less likely to be bigots: often that is referring to uni graduates, but there is evidence that uni graduates are just better at hiding their bigotry. Such people may also downplay problems - for instance, amongst blue collar workers - on the basis of a few individuals who are actually bucking the trend (and keep in mind I spent quite a few years living with a partner who was blue collar in The  Pines [which is NOT all of North Frankston], so I've seen the best and worst of blue collar workers and uni graduates - and the blindly optimistic, who I consider to be the worst of all). 

These examples are illustrative of confirmation  bias and the "social  bubble" effect (and the concept and reality extends beyond and pre-dates the terms use for the Internet) - and that there are trends in groups which can be measured, and which may be indicative of things like culture. 

When people in the west refer to "democracy", they're actually, whether they realise it or not, referring to a centuries long struggle against Western monarchical systems. Yes, I'm aware that there are many references back to Ancient Greece's version of democracy (which originally came from further east, from memory), but what we have here is built around the starting point of needing to protect people lacking political power from those elites who do have money, social "prestige", and political influence. 

We have acquired other aspects along the way, and the "old money" and newly elite have got better about hiding their influence and power, but we still have a centuries long tradition - or trend - of trying to get power to be more uniformly available. 

To some extent, a horribly twisted version of that, built on a series of utterly disgusting lies, was behind the attempt to steal power from the majority of people in the USA on 6th January this year.

The response has shown how much people care about true democracy. 

Similarly, here in Australia, there has been growing criticism of our national neoliberal government, as their shortcomings are made ever more clear by the media.

True, the shortcomings were always there for people to see, but the right wing media hid those at the last election, and there were scare campaigns built on utter falsehoods. 

And now people are starting to object more strenuously to threats to our democracy.

The threats are real, no mistake about that, but the responses are also real, and are being aided by our growing understanding of how to monitor, measure  and  assess  democracy. 

There are some people who feel more secure under authoritarian scenarios, but those forms of government are rigid and inflexible, and thus unable to adapt adequately in the long term, and eventually the majority of people will want their freedom back again. 

There is an old joke, from the time of the fall of the USSR, that "communism is the longest and most difficult path from capitalism to capitalism". That is obviously focused on economic matters, but similar comments can be made about authoritarian regimes: there may be enough of an attraction for some people that they can seize and hold power, but their shortcomings - including the necessarily brutal exercise of power (including the appallingly brutal, coercive and invasive mind control of the CCP) - will eventually remind people of the benefits of freedom. 

After that, it is a matter of arguing about the form of freedom, and how to get there. 

Other nations may not have the same cultural tradition of freedom - and I'm including former colonies in that, as their governance was about suppression, not encouraging freedom. The desire for freedom in such nations is, in my experience, stronger than in nations which have not tasted it yet - particularly in Uganda, where the courage of young people during the last election was awe-inspiring.

In those nations, establishing democracy is not only about winning an election, it is about people debating and choosing the details they consider best suits the cultures of their nation, and then establishing an overall culture of democratic traditions for at least three generations. 

Backsliding can occur, as illustrated by Russia under Putin, which reflects to some extent the externally imposed pace & nature of change and the arbitrarily assigned end point.

But everywhere, democracy is the best expression we currently have of the innate human desire for dignity and freedom: to say that democracy is fragile is to mistakes the expression or form of realisation of that desire for the desire itself. 

Let's keep working to help the best of the human spirit.