Extract from Eureka Street
- Home
- Vol 36 No 22
- The real test of democracy comes after the election
- Andrew Hamilton
- 12 November 2026
In the last week, the United States midterm elections have dominated the news, with much of the Australian media welcoming the results as a rejection of populist and authoritarian politics. It may be worthwhile to set the election in the broader context of other recent events and to reflect on the deeper significance of the result.
Three weeks ago, much public comment about the elections was apprehensive. It read the violent French riots as representing the repudiation of democratic institutions by an angry populace. Many people viewed with apprehension the coming series of elections in Serbia, Brazil, the United States and New Zealand. In the first three nations, the elections tested support for populist and autocratic rulers and their governance. Many commentators described them as a choice between progressive and conservative ideas.
After the elections, the mood is more buoyant. In them, voters rejected authoritarian and populist options. They showed respect for democratic processes. Australian commentators focused particularly on the United States election. They believed that voters strongly repudiated the governance of President Trump and of the Republican Party. In that view, they were surely correct. More, however, needs to be said by way of response than beating dead horses.
In the first place, the elections demonstrated the strength of democratic institutions such as the rule of law, the decisive place of the democratic vote in constituting government, and perhaps surprisingly, the relative ineffectiveness of wealth and social media in shaping the way people voted. They also emphasised the importance of local community groups in influencing the ways people voted and the consequent actions of politicians. The strong participation in voting by Latino and Black voters in the United States and by Palestinian Israelis in Israel, and the political campaigns led by students in Brazil and Serbia, affected the results of the elections and created new political possibilities.
"In all these elections people voted against the authoritarian parties and governments that had not served them well. In the next elections they will pass judgment on the competence and honesty of Governments that claim to be democratic. They will judge them also on their effectiveness in serving their people’s interests. If a democratic government fails these tests, they may choose one that is authoritarian."
Second, however, we should be cautious in assessing the strength of the victory of democratic institutions and of the parties that represented them over authoritarian government. The voting is more accurately described as the rejection of particular authoritarian parties and personalities than as the triumph of democratic governance. United States voters condemned the failure of the Trump government to address the economic needs of people who were impoverished and disrespected by the actions of the government and by the corruption of its representatives. The election in Serbia was also a judgment on the failure of a government to deliver prosperity after a long term in office. The election in Brazil focused on the lack of integrity of the challenger. In all these elections, people voted against the authoritarian parties and governments that had not served them well. In the next elections, they will pass judgment on the competence and honesty of governments that claim to be democratic. They will judge them also on their effectiveness in serving their people's interests. If a democratic government fails these tests, they may choose one that is authoritarian.
Third, in today's world, voters will judge governing parties by the seriousness with which they address gross inequality in society. Wealthy corporations and individuals benefit by controlling people who seek employment, the conditions under which they work and the security of their environment. They also control the exploitation of the natural and social environment. In this situation, governments cannot remedy inequality without offending the interests and power of wealthy individuals and corporations with control of the media. If governments are courageous in addressing the inequality that breeds social resentment, they must persuade people of the wisdom of their actions. Failure to act boldly, however, will increase people's discontent, lead to social resentment, and make certain the party's defeat – perhaps by an authoritarian party – at the next election. The need to reduce national debt will not be seen as an excuse for failing to act.
Fourth, although the crisis of inequality and governance that underlies the present social tension in the world affects politics, it is at heart ethical. It requires politicians and voters to move beyond asking what is politically expedient in making decisions about economic priorities, employment, gambling, and so on. They must make central the value of each human being and the relationships which are central to human flourishing. Those relationships can be spelled out in terms of human rights exercised in a way that embodies the words of the slogan: liberty, equality and fraternity. These are based on the preciousness of each human being and the need to express these qualities in law, in respect and in economic life. Where one word is emphasised without respect for the others, the result is an inhumane world. The liberty of individuals to achieve their own goals, for example, is central. If, however, the desire to amass wealth and power is not guided by respect for the human equality and preciousness of others in society, nor expressed in meeting the demands of fraternity through the debt owed to other, less advantaged human beings, the result is a divided society governed by the tyranny of power. In a democracy, that is unstable and leads naturally to either revolution or tyranny.
Scrupulous respect for human dignity is particularly important today because the development of technology in medicine, communication and health encourages seeing human beings as inferior machines, and so as replaceable. The elections affirmed the priority of human wisdom and relationships over power and wealth in the development and use of technology. They represented a celebration of humane values. They also challenged us not to lose heart in facing the deeper challenges that lie ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment