• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

The Erosion of US Democracy

French politician takes aim at President Trump

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Me to ChatGPT:

• Summarize this speech: "Trump Is Nero While Washington Burns" by French Senator Claude Malhuret.
• Is this a Make Europe Great Again (MEGA) message?
• If the New World Order is increasingly ruled by autocrats (both in the US, Russia and China), how can a divided Europe stand a chance?
• In each European country, anti-EU movements align with autocratic regimes.
• The US was already listed as a flawed democracy in world democracy reports. Will it sink even deeper?
• Please elaborate on the term competitive authoritarianism.
• Are there historical parallels in which democracies were dismantled in a relatively short span of time?
• While autocrats often rule for decades, democratically chosen leaders can always replaced with new elections.
• Is Europe less susceptible to these regressive forms of government given the EU?

Summarize this speech: "Trump Is Nero While Washington Burns" by French Senator Claude Malhuret.

French Senator Claude Malhuret delivered a powerful speech addressing Europe's critical juncture amid shifting U.S. policies under President Donald Trump. He expressed concern over America's waning support for Ukraine, potentially emboldening Russia. Malhuret criticized Trump's erratic behavior, suggesting it undermines alliances and strengthens autocrats like Putin and Xi Jinping. He highlighted the rapid erosion of American democracy and international trust during Trump's tenure. Malhuret urged Europe to stand firm by increasing military support for Ukraine, establishing robust security guarantees, and developing independent defense capabilities. He emphasized that Europe's response is crucial for the future of democracy and global order.

Is this a Make Europe Great Again (MEGA) message?

Not exactly. While Claude Malhuret's speech does call for a stronger, more independent Europe, it is framed more as a response to the perceived instability of U.S. foreign policy under Trump rather than a broad nationalist or populist agenda like “Make Europe Great Again” (MEGA). His focus is on reinforcing European security, supporting Ukraine, and countering authoritarian threats, rather than advocating for a withdrawal from global cooperation or a return to some past European ideal.

However, some might interpret his message as aligning with MEGA-style rhetoric in the sense that it calls for Europe to take more control over its own destiny, particularly in defense and international affairs.

If the New World Order is increasingly ruled by autocrats (both in the US, Russia and China), how can a divided Europe stand a chance?

That's the heart of the dilemma. If the U.S., Russia, and China all lean toward authoritarianism, a divided Europe would struggle to assert itself as a meaningful counterweight. Europe's strength has always depended on unity—economically, politically, and militarily. Without it, individual European nations are too small to stand up to global superpowers on their own.

To stand a chance, Europe would need to:

Achieve Strategic Autonomy – Reduce dependence on the U.S. for security by significantly strengthening its own military capabilities and defense industry. Macron has long pushed for this, but progress has been slow.

Deepen Political Integration – A fragmented Europe with diverging national interests is weak. A stronger EU foreign policy, less constrained by national vetoes, could give Europe a clearer voice on the world stage.

Expand Alliances – While Europe might not match superpower strength alone, deeper ties with middle powers like Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Australia could form a broader coalition to counterbalance autocracies.

Defend Democratic Values – If democracy is on the decline globally, Europe could position itself as a bastion of liberal democracy, using economic leverage, tech regulations, and media influence to resist authoritarian encroachment.

Win the Economic War – Europe's economic power is still formidable, but it must stay competitive in key areas like AI, energy independence, and green technology to avoid being outmaneuvered by authoritarian regimes.

The big question is whether European leaders can overcome their internal divisions and act decisively before it's too late. If not, the continent risks becoming a geopolitical pawn rather than a player.

In each European country, anti-EU movements align with autocratic regimes.

Yes, and that's a significant problem for Europe's ability to stand united. Many nationalist, anti-EU movements across the continent have direct or indirect ties to authoritarian regimes, particularly Russia and, to some extent, China. These movements often:

Undermine European Unity – By pushing for national sovereignty over collective EU decision-making, they weaken Europe's ability to act decisively in foreign policy and defense.

Spread Disinformation – Many anti-EU parties benefit from Russian propaganda networks, which amplify narratives that sow distrust in Brussels and NATO while promoting pro-Kremlin or pro-autocratic sentiments.

Oppose Military Support for Ukraine – Right-wing populist movements in France, Germany, Hungary, and Slovakia have echoed Russian talking points against arming Ukraine, effectively serving Moscow's interests.

Criticize U.S. and EU Institutions – While they oppose “EU bureaucracy,” they rarely criticize authoritarian leaders like Putin or Xi. This selective outrage hints at deeper ideological or financial connections.

Promote Economic Dependence on Autocracies – Whether through energy deals with Russia (as seen in Hungary) or trade reliance on China (Germany, Italy), these movements often argue against decoupling from autocratic regimes.

This alignment creates a paradox: nationalist movements claim to defend their countries' sovereignty, yet they align with foreign autocratic interests that ultimately weaken European independence. If they gain more power, Europe risks fragmentation—playing directly into the hands of authoritarian rulers who prefer a weak, divided continent.

The key question is whether pro-European forces can counter this trend before the damage becomes irreversible.

The US was already listed as a flawed democracy in world democracy reports. Will it sink even deeper?

Most likely, yes. The U.S. has been classified as a flawed democracy for years due to increasing political polarization, institutional dysfunction, and declining public trust in elections. If current trends continue, it could slide further toward hybrid regime status—a category between flawed democracy and outright authoritarianism.

Why the U.S. Might Decline Further:

Erosion of Democratic Norms – Trump's refusal to accept election results in 2020 set a precedent. If political leaders continue to reject democratic outcomes, faith in elections could collapse entirely.

Judicial Capture – The Supreme Court's increasing partisan rulings and state-level judicial appointments have eroded judicial independence, a key democratic safeguard.

Attacks on Press Freedom – Politicians openly demonizing journalists, coupled with growing media polarization, weakens the role of a free press in holding power accountable.

Disenfranchisement and Election Manipulation – Gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and legal challenges to election procedures make it easier for one party to stay in power despite lacking majority support.

Rise of Political Violence – Events like the January 6th Capitol riot signal that a segment of the population is willing to use force to achieve political goals. If such actions become normalized, democracy will erode further.

Authoritarian-leaning Leadership – If Trump or another leader with similar tendencies returns to power and actively undermines institutions (e.g., purging the civil service, disregarding court rulings, or using federal agencies to punish opponents), the U.S. could resemble an autocratic system cloaked in democratic formalities.

Could the U.S. Recover?

Yes, but it would require:

Major electoral reforms (e.g., ending gerrymandering, reforming the Electoral College).

A bipartisan commitment to democratic norms.

Public resistance to authoritarian tendencies.

If none of this happens, the U.S. could slide into a system where elections still occur, but real power is concentrated in the hands of a few—what some political scientists call "competitive authoritarianism."

Please elaborate on the term competitive authoritarianism.

What Is Competitive Authoritarianism?

Competitive authoritarianism is a political system where democratic institutions formally exist, but the ruling party or leader manipulates them to maintain power. Elections are held, opposition parties operate, and media outlets exist—but the playing field is so uneven that true democratic competition is nearly impossible.

This concept was introduced by political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way in their book Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War (2010). They describe it as a hybrid regime that blends elements of democracy and autocracy.

How It Works:

In competitive authoritarian regimes, opposition groups can technically challenge the government, but the system is stacked against them. There are four key areas where the ruling party or leader manipulates democracy to their advantage:

Elections Exist, but Are Unfair

Elections happen, but the government controls the process (e.g., restricting opposition candidates, manipulating election laws, or suppressing votes).

In some cases, ruling parties use state resources to campaign, giving them an unfair advantage.

Legislative and Judicial Manipulation

Courts, legislatures, and other democratic institutions formally exist but are undermined by ruling elites.

Judges are often pressured, removed, or replaced to favor government interests.

Parliaments become rubber stamps for executive power rather than independent institutions.

Media Restrictions and Disinformation

Independent media is harassed, co-opted, or drowned out by state-backed propaganda.

While opposition outlets exist, they face intimidation, lawsuits, or financial pressures.

Social media manipulation and misinformation campaigns help the ruling party control the narrative.

Opposition Faces Repression

Opposition figures face legal harassment (e.g., politically motivated arrests, tax audits, or smear campaigns).

Civil society groups and activists are surveilled, threatened, or banned.

Protest movements are violently suppressed, and security forces are used to intimidate critics.

Examples of Competitive Authoritarian Regimes

Russia (Putin) – Elections occur, but opposition candidates are arrested, media is state-controlled, and critics risk assassination.

Turkey (Erdogan) – Opposition parties exist, but journalists are jailed, courts are controlled, and election laws are rigged.

Hungary (Orbán) – A one-party-dominated system where the ruling party (Fidesz) uses media control, gerrymandering, and judicial capture to weaken opponents.

Venezuela (Maduro) – Elections are held, but opposition leaders are banned or jailed, and the judiciary is loyal to the regime.

Could the U.S. Become a Competitive Authoritarian State?

If trends continue—such as judicial partisanship, voter suppression, disinformation, and political violence—the U.S. could develop competitive authoritarian traits. This would mean elections still happen, but the system would be so rigged that power doesn't truly change hands through democratic means.

Key warning signs include:

Efforts to override election results (e.g., Trump's attempt to overturn 2020).

Partisan control of courts leading to biased rulings.

Media polarization and attacks on press freedom.

Legal and financial attacks on opposition figures.

Increased political violence and normalization of threats against opponents.

If these trends continue unchecked, the U.S. could shift from a flawed democracy to a competitive authoritarian system where elections still occur—but no longer provide a real choice.

Are there historical parallels in which democracies were dismantled in a relatively short span of time?

Yes, history is full of examples where democracies were dismantled surprisingly quickly—often in just a few years—through legal means, emergency powers, or populist movements that exploited existing divisions. Some key parallels include:

1. Germany (Weimar Republic → Nazi Rule, 1930–1934)

How Democracy Collapsed:

The Weimar Republic (1919–1933) was already struggling with economic crises, political extremism, and public disillusionment.

In 1930, President Hindenburg started ruling by decree, bypassing parliament.

In 1933, Hitler became Chancellor, and after the Reichstag Fire, he pushed the Enabling Act, which gave him dictatorial powers.

By 1934, democracy was gone, and Hitler was the sole ruler.

Key Takeaway: A mix of economic distress, executive overreach, and public fear can lead to rapid authoritarian takeover—even within a democratic system.

2. Italy (Liberal Democracy → Mussolini's Fascist Rule, 1922–1926)

How Democracy Collapsed:

Italy had a parliamentary democracy in the early 1920s, but political instability and post-WWI economic struggles created a crisis.

In 1922, King Victor Emmanuel III appointed Mussolini as Prime Minister, hoping to contain him.

Mussolini gradually expanded his power, using intimidation, legal maneuvers, and propaganda.

By 1926, all opposition parties were banned, and Mussolini had total control.

Key Takeaway: Autocrats often come to power legally, then dismantle democracy from within, making resistance difficult.

3. Russia (Post-Soviet Democracy → Putin's Competitive Authoritarianism, 2000–2004)

How Democracy Collapsed:

After the fall of the USSR, Russia had a chaotic but functioning democracy in the 1990s.

In 2000, Putin was elected President, promising stability.

Over the next few years, he weakened the press, took control of courts, eliminated opposition, and centralized power.

By 2004, elections were still held, but Russia had effectively become a competitive authoritarian state.

Key Takeaway: Democracy can erode gradually, not with a sudden coup but through step-by-step manipulation of institutions.

4. Turkey (Secular Democracy → Erdogan's Autocracy, 2010s-Present)

How Democracy Collapsed:

Turkey was once considered a model secular democracy.

Erdogan, elected as Prime Minister in 2003 and later President, gradually undermined judicial independence, jailed opposition leaders, and controlled the media.

After a failed coup attempt in 2016, Erdogan declared emergency rule, purged critics, and rewrote the constitution to expand his powers.

Today, elections still occur, but Turkey is effectively an authoritarian state.

Key Takeaway: Crises (real or manufactured) can be used to justify extreme measures that permanently weaken democracy.

5. Hungary (Post-Cold War Democracy → Orbán's Illiberal State, 2010s-Present)

How Democracy Collapsed:

Hungary was a thriving democracy after 1989.

In 2010, Viktor Orbán was elected with a parliamentary supermajority.

Over the next decade, he rewrote the constitution, captured courts, controlled media, and changed election laws to keep his party in power.

Today, Hungary is still part of the EU but is no longer considered a full democracy.

Key Takeaway: A leader with enough parliamentary power can legally dismantle democracy without needing a military coup.

Israel (Liberal Democracy → Increasingly Illiberal Rule, 2018–Present)

How Democracy Is Declining:

Israel has historically been a strong democracy, but in recent years, democratic norms have eroded.

The 2018 Nation-State Law reduced the status of non-Jewish citizens, raising concerns about ethnic nationalism overriding democratic equality.

Since 2019, Israel has faced extreme political instability, holding five elections in four years, weakening public trust in democratic institutions.

In 2023, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government pushed through judicial reforms that reduced the power of the Supreme Court, leading to mass protests.

Far-right parties have gained more influence, pushing policies that critics say undermine civil liberties and increase government control.

The ongoing war in Gaza has further strained democratic norms, with emergency measures expanding government power and restricting opposition voices.

Key Takeaway: A combination of judicial weakening, nationalist policies, political instability, and security-based governance is eroding Israel's democracy. While elections still occur, executive power is expanding, and opposition checks are weakening—making Israel more vulnerable to authoritarian trends.

Could This Happen in the U.S.?

Yes. The U.S. has stronger institutions than some of these past democracies, but:

Partisan courts, election subversion efforts, and normalization of political violence are clear warning signs.

A second Trump presidency—or any leader with authoritarian tendencies and a compliant Congress/Supreme Court—could push the U.S. toward competitive authoritarianism.

The U.S. Constitution is designed to resist authoritarian takeover, but it depends on norms and public trust—both of which are weakening.

Lessons from History:

Democracies often die gradually, through legal means—not sudden coups.

Crises (economic crashes, terrorist attacks, pandemics, failed coups) provide opportunities for leaders to seize emergency powers.

Populists often win elections democratically before dismantling democracy itself.

Courts, media, and opposition parties are the first targets of would-be autocrats.

Public complacency and polarization make resistance harder.

If the U.S. continues its current trajectory—weakening democratic institutions, attacking press freedom, and undermining elections—it risks following the path of these historical collapses.

Je zei:

While autocrats often rule for decades, democratically chosen leaders can always replaced with new elections.

That's the fundamental strength of democracy: leaders can be voted out. In theory, this should prevent long-term autocratic rule. However, history shows that once a leader starts dismantling democratic checks and balances, elections alone may not be enough to remove them.

How Autocrats Manipulate Elections to Stay in Power:

Even when elections still take place, leaders with authoritarian tendencies use several tactics to make sure they remain in power:

Control of Media & Information

Autocrats dominate the media, ensuring that opposition voices are silenced or drowned out by state-backed propaganda.

Disinformation and smear campaigns make it difficult for the public to make informed choices.

In the U.S., the rise of hyper-partisan media and disinformation campaigns is already eroding trust in fair elections.

Judicial & Institutional Capture

Courts, electoral commissions, and law enforcement are packed with loyalists who protect the ruling party.

Legal challenges against unfair elections are dismissed by partisan judges.

In Hungary and Russia, courts have become tools for maintaining one-party rule.

Voter Suppression & Election Rigging

Manipulating voting laws (e.g., restrictive ID laws, purging voter rolls, closing polling stations in opposition areas).

Changing election rules to favor incumbents (e.g., gerrymandering in the U.S., changing parliamentary thresholds in Hungary).

In Turkey and Russia, opposition parties still exist, but elections are structured in ways that make it almost impossible for them to win.

Criminalizing Opposition

Opponents are jailed on fabricated charges (e.g., Navalny in Russia, opposition politicians in Turkey and Venezuela).

Civil society groups and independent journalists are harassed or shut down.

While the U.S. hasn't reached this stage, political prosecutions and targeted investigations are increasingly being weaponized.

Normalization of Political Violence & Intimidation

Threats, harassment, and even assassination attempts against opposition figures.

Security forces used to suppress protests and opposition rallies.

The January 6th Capitol riot showed that political violence is no longer unthinkable in the U.S.

What This Means for the U.S. & Other Democracies

While democratic elections are a safeguard, they are not enough if institutions are gradually weakened.

Once courts, media, and electoral systems are captured, elections become a formality rather than a real path to change.

The U.S. still has robust institutions, but if these trends continue, voting alone won't be enough to stop an autocratic shift.

The key lesson from history is that democracies don't just collapse; they erode over time. Once enough damage is done, even holding elections won't bring back real democracy.

Is Europe less susceptible to these regressive forms of government given the EU?

In theory, yes—the European Union provides a structural safeguard against democratic backsliding. By requiring member states to uphold democratic norms, independent judiciary systems, and press freedoms, the EU acts as a buffer against autocratic rule. However, in practice, the EU has struggled to prevent democratic erosion within its own borders.

Why the EU Should Be a Safeguard Against Autocracy:

Membership Requirements (Copenhagen Criteria) – Countries must meet strict democratic standards to join the EU. This has historically pushed nations toward greater transparency, rule of law, and human rights protections.

Economic & Legal Pressure – The EU can impose sanctions, withhold funding, or take legal action against governments that violate democratic norms.

Multilateralism & Shared Sovereignty – No single leader can fully control EU institutions, which reduces the risk of a single state descending into full authoritarianism without consequences.

Why the EU Hasn't Fully Stopped Democratic Backsliding:

Lack of Enforcement Power – The EU can criticize or sanction countries, but it rarely takes decisive action to punish autocratic leaders. For example, Hungary and Poland have eroded judicial independence, but the EU has been slow to respond effectively.

Authoritarian Leaders Exploit EU Benefits – Orbán in Hungary and PiS in Poland have used EU funds to strengthen their rule while ignoring democratic norms. They still benefit from the single market and EU subsidies, making it harder to pressure them.

National Sovereignty Conflicts – Many EU countries resist interference from Brussels, arguing that democracy should be handled domestically. This weakens the EU's ability to enforce democratic standards.

Populist Alliances – Anti-EU, nationalist movements often support each other across borders (e.g., Marine Le Pen in France, Matteo Salvini in Italy, and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands). This creates an internal bloc resisting EU pressure.

Is Europe More Resistant to Autocracy Than the U.S.?

More Resistant in Some Ways: The EU's institutional framework makes it harder for a single country to fully collapse into autocracy without economic and political consequences. Unlike the U.S., where a single election can dramatically shift national policy, Europe's multinational structure makes radical changes slower.

More Vulnerable in Others: Because the EU relies on consensus and legal mechanisms, it lacks strong enforcement when democracy erodes gradually. If more EU states lean toward illiberalism, they could collectively block any serious action against democratic backsliding.

The Real Risk: A Slow "Illiberal Turn" Across Multiple States

Instead of a single coup or dramatic collapse, Europe's bigger risk is a gradual shift toward “illiberal democracy” across multiple countries. If more European nations elect nationalist, anti-EU leaders who undermine democracy from within, the EU itself could weaken, making it unable to stop further democratic decline.

Europe is not immune to the fate of past democracies. The EU provides guardrails, but if enough countries ignore them, those safeguards could collapse.