Democracy Protects Freedom
82 percent of Europeans live in freedom
Freedom is a valuable right that is especially protected in democracies. A new study by Freedom House examines how free the world's population really is. In Europe, despite a slight decline in the freedom index compared to 2023, over 80 percent of the population still lives in freedom. This decline is mainly due to growing concerns about state corruption.
Poland is a positive outlier in Europe where – in a rare bright spot among this year's elections – the result of the Polish parliamentary elections showed that opposition forces can win even in the face of vote rigging. The national media system benefits from waning government influence and there is a wider range of independent media: an essential foundation for freedom and democratic stability.
The situation is different in Africa, where freedom is declining for the tenth year in a row. Almost half of the African population is not free. Nevertheless, there are glimmers of hope: In some countries, courts have been able to defend important human and LGBTQ+ rights, which emphasises how important an independent judiciary is for freedom and democracy.
America remains one of the freest regions in the world despite some challenges to democratic institutions. Almost 94 percent of people are free or partly free. In Central and South America elections proved to be a key element for democratic renewal and stabilisation. The strength of democracy in the region is particularly evident in Guatemala and Ecuador, where democratic presidential candidates have been successful.
In contrast, the situation in the Asia-Pacific and Eurasia regions is deteriorating. Particularly in Eurasia, where 84 percent of the population is not free. This is mainly due to the increasing influence of authoritarian regimes such as Russia.
More information about the relationship between democratic institutions and freedom is available in the Freedom House study Freedom in the World.
The EU as a Protective Shield for Democracy
What challenges does European democracy face?
In 2022, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, announced a programme to protect democracy in Europe. The aim of the Defence of Democracy package is to combat foreign influence, provide greater protection for elections and increase citizen participation. In this context, the EU-Parliament has addressed the greatest challenges facing European democracy.
Fake news was identified as the greatest challenge to democracy in 22 of the 27 EU member states. Scepticism towards democratic institutions such as elections follows in second place. In Italy and Croatia, this scepticism was even classified as the biggest problem for European democracy. At the same time, more and more EU citizens are becoming increasingly concerned about the protection of European elections. While fewer than six in ten citizens had concerns in this regard in 2020, the figure is significantly higher in 2023.
European democracy must assert itself against both external and internal threats given the current tense foreign policy situation with major centres of conflict such as the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. The threat of foreign influence in particular is being taken seriously by the EU Parliament and is being scrutinised intensively by two special committees. Non-governmental organisations can also influence European politics. A lack of transparency in their funding can lead to undesirable foreign influence.
Internal challenges include the growing popularity of far-right authoritarian parties and the increasing polarisation of European politics. These developments pose a serious threat to the stability and cohesion of the European community and require the broad participation of citizens.
More information on the protection of European democracy can be found in the European Parliament study Resilience of Democracy and European Elections against New Challenges.
US Democracy in Crisis Mode
Is US democracy in serious crisis?
The presidential election in the USA is one of the largest and most important elections in the world. Almost 258 million people will vote for a new president on 5 November 2024. However, after the storming of the Capitol and the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the state of US democracy is uncertain.
In a study, the Pew Research Center examines the attitude of Americans towards the state of their democracy. According to the survey, 72 percent of respondents say that the USA used to be a good example of a stable democracy, but no longer is. There are clear differences between the age groups: of those under the age of 30, only 16 percent see US democracy as a role model for other nations, compared to 22 percent of those over the age of 50.
The development of US democracy is also viewed critically in Germany. 62 percent of respondents believe that the USA has not been a good example of democracy in recent years. This scepticism is only greater in the UK, Japan, Canada and the USA itself. Younger people abroad are also more critical than older people. In Greece, for example, 54 percent of respondents under the age of 35 believe that the USA is no longer a good example of democracy. In comparison, only 34 percent of those aged over 50 do.
One possible reason for this scepticism could be the growing criticism of the Supreme Court. The Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung conducted an interview with Professor Russell A. Miller from the Lee University School of Law. He sees the politicisation of judicial elections as a major problem. In the USA, the president nominates new judges, who are then confirmed by parliament. Unlike Germany, judges in the USA are appointed for life. For example, Republicans in Parliament boycotted the confirmation of Judge Merrick Garland, who was nominated by Obama. As a result, Donald Trump nominated the conservative judge Neal Gorsuch in 2016. The Republican majority in Parliament accepted Gorsuch. The Democrats refer to this action as a ‘stolen seat’. Russell A. Miller emphasises, however, that both Republicans and Democrats have contributed to the politicisation and damage of the Supreme Court.
For more information on the state of US democracy, see the study by the Pew Research Center. Further reasons for the crisis of the Supreme Court are discussed in the interview The American Supreme Court in Crisis? by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. For background information on the upcoming presidential elections, please refer to our Think Tank Report on the topic of elections.
75 Years of the Grundgesetz: What now?
What is the future of democracy in Germany?
This year, the Federal Republic of Germany is celebrating 75 years of the “Grundgesetz (the German Basic Law). The constitution, which Konrad Adenauer played a key role in drafting, came into force on 23 May 1949. Three quarters of a century later, similar questions arise as in the initial phase of the constitution: How sustainable is democracy in Germany and how do citizens rate it? These are the questions addressed by the study Enttäuschung, Frust und Resignation of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.
Articles 1 and 20 of the Basic Law are subject to the entrenchment clause in Germany and thus ensure a clear commitment to democracy. The study by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung specifically examines the attitudes of AfD voters towards democracy in comparison to non-AfD voters.
Both groups perceive a threat to democracy in Germany, but differ in their assessment of the specific dangers. AfD voters believe that freedom of expression no longer exists in Germany. In particular, one could no longer address the topic of migration without being ‘labelled a Nazi’. In addition, the group of AfD voters doubts the right of co-determination. Non-AfD voters, on the other hand, especially those from western Germany, see the AfD as the greatest threat to democracy. They see the rise of the AfD as a sign of an increase in anti-democratic and far-right attitudes. They are also concerned about freedom of expression, as they believe some topics were being discussed too emotionally in society.
These results are underpinned by Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung’s study Bäumchen wechsel dich. The study sheds light on Germans' satisfaction with democracy. Only 36 percent of citizens are satisfied with German democracy. Particularly the trust in the Bundestag – as the centrepiece of democracy – is declining. The trust of SPD and CDU supporters is 57 percent (SPD) and 42 percent (CDU) respectively, while a mere 8 percent of AfD voters trust the Bundestag. Only the trust of Green Party supporters rose to 85 percent.
More information on the evaluation of German democracy is available in the studies Enttäuschung, Frust und Resignation as well as Bäumchen wechsel dich of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. The history of the creation of the German Basic Law is analysed more closely in the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung publication series Zeitgeschichte Aktuell.
Is Hostility the Norm?
How can the situation of honorary mayors be improved?
Citizen participation is an important part of democracy. Volunteer mayors play a special role in this, as they are the link between politics and citizens. However, according to a survey by the Körber-Stiftung, 71 percent of the mayors surveyed believe that there are too few people interested in their office.
In the forsa survey conducted by the Körber-Stiftung, 1,549 volunteer mayors were asked about the conditions of their office. They cited a variety of motivations for exercising their office. At 72 percent, the advancement of the municipality was mentioned most frequently, 45 percent stated that they wanted to stand up for their fellow citizens, and as many as 6 percent wanted to strengthen democracy.
An important factor for many honorary mayors is the financial aspect. In order to make the office more attractive, 66 percent of respondents call for better pay. Despite the financial concerns, 53 percent believe it makes sense to work as a mayor on a voluntary basis rather than full-time. In addition, more than half of those surveyed would like to have more discretionary latitude and fewer administrative tasks in order to be able to organise their work more effectively.
The study pays particular attention to the mayors' experiences of hostility. 40 percent of respondents reported that they had already been insulted, threatened or attacked. However, 57 percent stated that such hostility was rather rare. Some also criticised the harsh tone in local politics. In the study Mehr Respekt bitte!, the Körber Foundation emphasises the need for a better culture of discussion in local politics. It proposes training courses for volunteer politicians, greater formalisation of council meetings and the establishment of a municipal conflict counselling service to improve the situation.
The results of the forsa survey and further suggestions for improvement are available in the studies Die Situation ehrenamtlicher Bürgermeisterinnen und Bürgermeister and Mehr Respekt bitte! by the Körber Foundation. The relevance of civic participation for politics and society is analysed in more detail in a publication by the Robert-Bosch-Stiftung.
Environmental Disasters as Door Openers
What influence do environmental disasters have on democracy?
Environmental disasters such as the flood disaster in the Ahr valley repeatedly highlight the threat of climate change. Since the mid-2000s, the number of natural disasters worldwide has remained at a high level. But can such disasters also have a positive effect on democracy? The V-Dem-Institute has analysed this question and presented some interesting results.
In the study Political Consequences of Natural Disasters: Accidental Democratization?, V-Dem examined the hypothesis of whether environmental disasters can lead to democratisation processes. The focus was on the effects on elections, civil society involvement and the independence of the media. Two possible scenarios were analysed: Either incumbents use crisis situations to restrict democratic institutions, or there is an activation of civil society and critical media coverage.
The results of the study indicate that environmental disasters do not necessarily lead to democratic setbacks. Quite the opposite. The study shows that environmental disasters often lead to a strengthening of civil society and political commitment. Natural disasters have a particularly positive effect on freedom of expression and the independence of the media. As the number of natural disasters increases, so does the pressure on the political status quo, which can potentially lead to change.
However, the study emphasises that environmental disasters merely open the door to possible democratisation processes. They do not automatically lead to more democracy. Nevertheless, there are some examples that illustrate this effect: An earthquake in Mexico in 1985 led to critical reporting and the mobilisation of civil society. In the aftermath of an earthquake in Turkey in 1999, by contrast, the government restricted the possibilities of humanitarian organisations that had attempted to alleviate the consequences of the disaster. These different developments show that the impact of environmental disasters on democracy is complex and depends on the context.
Further theories on the connection between environmental disasters and democracy are available in the study Political Consequences of Natural Disasters: Accidental Democratization? by V-Dem.
Loss in Trust?
Trust in the media has been steadily declining in Germany since 2020
Independent media is essential for a stable democracy, as it reports critically on the work of political actors and institutions. However, the constantly growing media landscape requires a clear distinction between serious and untrustworthy formats. A long-term study by the University of Mainz shows that this problem also has an impact on Germans' trust in the media.
Since the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, Germans' trust in the media has steadily declined. In 2023, only 44 percent of respondents said they fully trusted the media, compared to 56 percent in 2020. However, this increase in mistrust is not necessarily a bad thing. It also shows that citizens are more sceptical of questionable media platforms and are therefore less susceptible to misinformation.
Despite the growing mistrust, trust in public service media remained relatively stable. 64 percent of respondents fully trust public service media. This result has hardly changed over the last few years. Tabloid newspapers are the most mistrusted, with 66 percent of respondents mistrusting them. Opinions differ when it comes to private television channels: in 2023, 41 percent of respondents said they trusted them to some extent.
The Mainz long-term study also examines media cynicism in Germany. Less than half of those surveyed believe that the media system is merely a mouthpiece for the powerful. However, at 49 percent, the proportion of those who fully or partially agree with this statement should not be underestimated. These survey results are in line with pre-pandemic figures and highlight the population's continuing doubts about the media.
The media also has a massive influence on the perception of conflicts and wars, such as the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. In the context of Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung‘s Cafe Kyiv the image of Ukraine in the media was discussed in detail. Further results of the long-term study by the University of Mainz can be found in the journal Media Perspektiven.
TikTok: Changing Opinions?
What influence does social media have on people's opinions?
The platform TikTok polarises opinion. Ever since it has been banned on the mobile phones of US government employees, there has been open discussion about banning the app in the USA. However, other social media platforms have also been criticised for failing to combat hate and fake news. A study by the Pew Research Center looks at the impact of social media on citizens’ political attitudes.
The platform X (formerly Twitter) is used most frequently to find out about politics. More than half of those surveyed stated this. TikTok follows in second place with 36 percent. Facebook and Instagram share the last place, with only 26 percent of users using each of these platforms for political information.
Social media repeatedly raises the question of whether it is a threat or an advantage for democracy. On the one hand, it expands citizens' opportunities for participation and facilitates access to political discussions. On the other hand, social media platforms lack a suitable filter function to protect against false information. According to the Pew Research Center, the evaluation of social media in the USA depends heavily on party affiliation. While 53 percent of Republicans believe that social media is primarily good for democracy, only 26 percent of Democrats are much more critical of this statement.
The EU also faces the problem of disinformation via social media. With the Digital Service Act, it is trying to put a stop to illegal content and misinformation. Social media platforms must regularly provide data that is checked by independent experts. However, the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) criticises the fact that these experts can only rely on the data provided by the platforms. In addition, the audit reports are only published 15 months after the data has been collected, limiting transparency. Although journalists can request the data from the platforms, they usually have no insight into the social media companies' algorithms, which makes it difficult to analyse the data.
A detailed explanation of the Digital Service Act can be found on the European Parliament's website. Further criticism of the Digital Service Act is presented in the article Digital Regulation May Have Bolstered European Elections – but How Would We Know? by CIGI. The Pew Research Center study provides an assessment of the influence of social media platforms on citizens' attitudes.
© Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e. V. 2024
Contributors to this issue were:
Team KALUZA + SCHMID Studio, Bogdan Miftakhov, Kristin Wesemann, Leon Buchberger
Sources
(1) Freedom House (2024): Freedom in the World 2024. Washington, DC.
(2) Bressanelli, Edoardo & Samuele Bernardi (2024): Resilience of Democracy and European Elections against New Challenges European Parliament, Brüssel.
(3) Fetterolf, Janell & Sofia Hernandez Ramones (2024): 72 % of Americans say the U.S. used to be a good example of democracy, but isn’t anymore. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC.
Rinke, Franziska (2023): The American Supreme Court in Crisis? Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Berlin
(4) Werkmann, Caroline & Hans-Jürgen Frieß (2024): Enttäuschung, Frust und Resignation Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Berlin
Pokorny, Sabine (2024): Bäumchen wechsel dich? Politische Einstellungen im Wandel. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Berlin
(5) forsa Gesellschaft für Sozialforschung und statistische Analysen (2024): Die Situation ehrenamtlicher Bürgermeisterinnen und Bürgermeister. Berlin.
Alin, Selina & Jana Faus (2024): Mehr Respekt bitte! Körber-Stiftung, Hamburg.
(6) Rydén, Oskar et al. (2024): Political Consequences of Natural Disasters: Accidental Democratization? V-Dem-Institute, Göteborg.
(7) Quiring, Oliver et al. (2024): Zurück zum Niveau vor der Pandemie – Konsolidierung von Vertrauen und Misstrauen, in: Media Perspektiven, 9/2024, ARD-Media, Hamburg.
(8)
Mcclain, Colleen & Monica Anderson & Risa Gelles-Watnick (2024): How Americans Navigate Politics on TikTok, X, Facebook and Instagram. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC.
Tworek, Heidi (2024): Digital Regulation May Have Bolstered European Elections — but How Would We Know? Centre for International Governance Innovation, Waterloo