From Flawed to Functional: Why Democracy Remains Our Best Weapon Against Global Crises

31 Mar

protesters marching at night through a city street, holding signs and placards during a women's rights demonstration. — Source: Adobe Stock (Sibway). Asset ID#: 879144636

Democracy is in trouble. Around the world, leaders are pushing the limits of democratic norms, testing how far they can centralize power without outright dismantling the system. Some, like Nayib Bukele in El Salvador and Viktor Orbán in Hungary, justify their grip on power by pointing to crime or economic instability. Others, like Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, manipulate elections and silence opposition, claiming to protect their countries from external threats. Meanwhile, figures like Donald Trump in the U.S. and Javier Milei in Argentina tap into public frustration, calling for radical change while undermining trust in democratic institutions.

These shifts aren’t happening in isolation—they reflect a growing sense that democracy isn’t delivering on its promises. Faced with insecurity, economic hardship, and political dysfunction, many people are willing to overlook—or even embrace—leaders who challenge democratic principles in the name of efficiency and results. However, does this strategy result in lasting and meaningful improvements? Do these so-called strongmen provide real solutions, or are they merely eroding the very foundations that sustain good governance?

While democratic backsliding has been widely studied, there is less focus on how democracies can resist and adapt. History shows that democratic systems are not static; they can reform, rebuild, and regain public trust when given the right tools. Rather than solely examining the causes of democratic decline, we should also be asking: How can it fight back?

This article explores two key case studies—El Salvador and Hungary—to examine why democratic trust is eroding and whether the alternatives truly deliver on their promises. Then, it turns to examples from Brazil and South Africa, where institutional reforms and citizen engagement have helped strengthen democratic resilience and address global crises effectively. Because the question isn’t just how democracy fails—it’s how it can survive.

The Decline of Democracy: Why Are People Losing Faith?

For much of the 20th century, democracy was seen as the gold standard of governance. The post-war period witnessed an expansion of democratic norms, and the end of the Cold War in the 1990s led many to believe that liberal democracy had triumphed. However, the past two decades have challenged this assumption.

According to Freedom House (2023), democracy has been in decline for 17 consecutive years. Meanwhile, The Economist Democracy Index 2023 reports that only 8% of the world’s population lives in what is classified as a ‘full democracy’, while more than half of the global population resides in ‘flawed’ or ‘hybrid’ democracies.

This democratic decline is not just reflected in institutional measures—it is also deeply felt by citizens. Surveys show that as democratic institutions weaken, so too does the belief that they can effectively address societal challenges. Latinobarómetro (2023) reported that nearly 75% of Latin Americans are dissatisfied with democracy, with 30% preferring authoritarian rule if it leads to more effective governance. In Europe, the Eurobarometer Flash 522 report on Democracy (March 2023) found that trust in national governments in the EU stands at 44%, while only 29% of citizens express confidence in political parties and politicians to defend democracy in their country.

This growing disillusionment can be attributed to several factors:

Corruption and Elitism – Many citizens perceive democratic institutions as benefiting political and economic elites rather than the general population. Scandals, cronyism, and corporate influence have eroded public trust.
Economic Inequality – In many democratic countries, wealth inequality has widened. When democracy fails to provide equal opportunities or social mobility, people start looking for alternatives.
Governance Gridlock – The slow, consensus-driven nature of democratic decision-making is often seen as ineffective in times of crisis. Populist leaders exploit this frustration by promising swift, unilateral action.

As trust in democracy declines, the demand for strong, decisive leadership grows. The frustration with democratic shortcomings has created an opening for leaders who frame democracy itself as the obstacle to progress. Rather than pursuing reforms to strengthen democratic institutions, many political actors are consolidating power, promoting centralized decision-making, and dismantling traditional checks and balances under the guise of efficiency and stability.

The Authoritarian Playbook: Quick Fixes, Long-Term Risks

The Case of Nayib Bukele: The Illusion of Security

For decades, El Salvador has struggled with gang violence, with homicide rates among the highest in the world. Successive governments failed to curb the influence of criminal groups, leaving citizens frustrated and disillusioned with democracy’s ability to provide security. Enter Nayib Bukele.

Since taking office in 2019, Bukele launched an aggressive crackdown on gangs, culminating in a state of emergency that has led to the arrest of over 70,000 people. The immediate impact was dramatic: homicide rates plummeted from 106.3 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2015 to just 1.9 in 2024, making El Salvador one of the safest countries in Latin America. Bukele’s popularity soared, with approval ratings consistently exceeding 80%, reinforcing his image as a decisive leader who gets things done.

But this success comes with significant trade-offs that raise concerns about the long-term consequences of his model:

False Sense of Stability – While the crackdown has reduced gang-related crime, it fails to address the root causes of violence, such as poverty, lack of economic opportunities, and weak social services. Without structural reforms, the current security gains may be short-lived, relying solely on repression rather than long-term solutions.
Escalation of Human Rights Abuses – Widespread arbitrary detentions, overcrowded prisons, and limited judicial oversight have drawn criticism from international watchdogs like Amnesty International, which warns that these policies reinforce cycles of violence rather than breaking them.
Weakening of Democratic Checks and Balances – Bukele has systematically concentrated power by removing Supreme Court judges and changing electoral rules. With a legislature dominated by his party, his government operates with minimal accountability.

While Bukele’s strategy may seem effective in the short term, history shows that security policies based on repression alone are rarely sustainable. Instead of strengthening democracy to solve El Salvador’s problems, Bukele’s model may leave the country more vulnerable in the long run.

Viktor Orbán and the Decline of Hungarian Democracy

Hungary, once a promising post-communist democracy, has become a key example of democratic backsliding in Europe. By the late 2000s, economic stagnation, growing inequalities, and declining public services left many, especially in rural and working-class communities, feeling abandoned by the political elite. Simultaneously, anxieties over immigration and cultural identity fueled resentment toward a system seen as prioritizing pluralism over national interests. This frustration created demand for a leader promising sovereignty, stability, and national revival—paving the way for Viktor Orbán’s rise.

Once in power in 2010, Orbán has steadily dismantled democratic institutions, consolidating control under what he calls an ‘illiberal democracy’. His strategy has relied on three key pillars:

Judicial and Electoral Manipulation – His government has packed courts with loyalists, restricted judicial independence, and redrawn electoral districts to favor his party, Fidesz.
Media Control – Over 80% of Hungarian media is now government-aligned, silencing independent journalism and amplifying pro-Orbán narratives.
Nationalist and Anti-EU Rhetoric – By positioning himself as the defender of Hungarian sovereignty against Brussels and immigration, Orbán has fueled nationalist sentiment to maintain popular support.

Initially, these policies provided political stability and a perception of economic recovery, but at a significant cost:

Erosion of Democratic Institutions – The weakening of judicial independence, media freedom, and civil society has concentrated power, reducing transparency and accountability. Public discourse has become less pluralistic, limiting meaningful political opposition.
Corruption and Economic Decline – Weak oversight has allowed corruption to flourish, diverting state resources to political allies and distorting economic priorities. This has reduced investor confidence, hampering long-term growth and increasing reliance on EU funds.
Increasing Isolation – Tensions with the EU have led to funding cuts and diplomatic marginalization. As foreign investment declines and economic uncertainty grows, Hungary risks stagnation, making future financial stability increasingly precarious.

While authoritarian measures may deliver immediate results, they often erode the very foundations—such as accountability, inclusivity, and institutional checks—that are essential for sustainably addressing the problems they claim to resolve. This tension raises a pressing question: could investing in participatory democracy provide more durable and equitable solutions?

How Democracies Can Fight Back: Lessons in Reform

If democracy is to reclaim its legitimacy, it must prove its ability to deliver meaningful, sustainable solutions. Two powerful examples—Brazil’s participatory budgeting and South Africa’s constitutional courts—illustrate how inclusive reforms can address inequality and governance failures while strengthening democratic resilience.

Brazil: Empowering Citizens Through Participatory Budgeting

In the late 1980s, as Brazil transitioned from military dictatorship to democracy, the country faced a deep crisis of inequality and distrust in government. Public services were underfunded, corruption was rampant, and marginalized communities had little say in decision-making. Against this backdrop, the city of Porto Alegre pioneered participatory budgeting—a system that allowed citizens to directly influence how municipal funds were allocated.

This groundbreaking initiative turned traditional governance on its head. Instead of politicians making unilateral decisions, local communities debated and voted on budget priorities in neighborhood assemblies. These discussions informed municipal spending, ensuring that funds were allocated to critical services like healthcare, education, housing, and infrastructure—especially in underserved areas.

The results were transformative:

Expanded Public Services – Between 1989 and 1996, access to basic sanitation increased from 46% to 85%, with public spending on healthcare doubling and the number of schools growing by nearly 200%.
Reduced Corruption – By making budget decisions transparent and publicly accountable, participatory budgeting curbed financial mismanagement, making it harder for politicians to divert funds for personal gain.
Greater Civic Engagement – Participatory budgeting gave citizens a direct role in governance, particularly those in low-income communities who had long been excluded from political processes. As trust in government increased, voter turnout and civic activism also saw a noticeable rise.

The success of Porto Alegre’s model led to its expansion across Brazil and later to other parts of the world. However, it has not been without challenges. Participation rates have often favored wealthier, more organized groups, while marginalized communities faced barriers like limited access to information and time constraints. Additionally, its effectiveness has depended on political will—many programs have weakened or disappeared under unsupportive administrations. While scaling participatory budgeting to the national level has proven difficult due to bureaucratic obstacles, its impact remains a powerful testament to how direct citizen engagement can improve governance, reduce inequality, and build trust in democracy.

South Africa: Defending Rights Through Constitutional Courts

In post-apartheid South Africa, democracy was fragile, and deep economic and racial inequalities persisted. To safeguard democratic principles and protect marginalized communities, the country established the Constitutional Court in 1994, a judicial body tasked with ensuring government accountability and upholding constitutional rights. Unlike traditional courts, it was designed to be accessible and inclusive, allowing public interest litigation spearheaded by civil society organizations. This enabled vulnerable populations to bring cases directly to the judiciary.

As a result, the court quickly became a key institution in strengthening democracy, issuing landmark rulings that reshaped South African society:

Housing Rights – In Grootboom v. Government of South Africa (2000), the court forced the state to prioritize housing for the poor, leading to the construction of over four million low-cost housing units and significant upgrades to informal settlements.
Access to Healthcare – The Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign (2002) ruling compelled the government to provide free antiretroviral drugs to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission, reducing transmission rates from 30% in 2000 to below 1% by 2017.
Judicial Oversight – The court has consistently acted as a check on executive overreach, blocking attempts to weaken democratic institutions and reinforcing the rule of law in moments of political crisis.

Despite its impact, the Constitutional Court faces challenges. The implementation of its rulings has often been slow, with government agencies resisting or delaying compliance. Legal processes remain complex and costly, making it difficult for the poorest citizens to access justice. Additionally, while the court has protected rights in individual cases, systemic issues like corruption and economic inequality persist, limiting its broader transformative potential.

Still, the South African Constitutional Court stands as a model of how independent judicial institutions can safeguard democracy, protect vulnerable communities, and hold governments accountable. Its role underscores the power of strong institutions in preventing democratic erosion—a crucial lesson for other democracies facing similar challenges.

Why Democracy Is Still the Best Solution

Societies today stand at a critical crossroads: they must choose between embracing the complex but necessary work of democratic reform or succumbing to the easier, more immediate promises of authoritarian governance. While democracies have undeniably fallen short in addressing pressing challenges like corruption, insecurity, and inequality, strengthening their foundations through meaningful reform may offer a more effective path forward than abandoning them altogether.

Democracies are inherently capable of self-correction, offering mechanisms such as checks and balances, citizen participation, and institutional accountability that enable them to evolve in response to societal demands. Nevertheless, achieving this evolution requires efforts—such as embedding reforms within institutional frameworks to ensure continuity, prioritizing inclusivity to empower marginalized groups, fostering collaboration between institutions and civil society, and addressing structural barriers like resource constraints and political resistance.

The Road Ahead

For democracy to remain strong, it must evolve. This requires not only maintaining its core principles but also proactively addressing threats such as institutional erosion, misinformation, and declining civic engagement. Here’s how:

Strengthen Institutions and Expand Citizen Participation – Independent courts, anti-corruption bodies, and electoral reforms can enhance accountability and transparency. At the same time, governments must promote participatory mechanisms—such as citizen assemblies and participatory budgeting—to give people a direct say in decision-making. However, these initiatives must be backed by real political will, ensuring that public input translates into action rather than symbolic consultation.
Protect Civil Society and Promote Media Literacy – Grassroots organizations and independent media are crucial in holding governments accountable, particularly in countries facing democratic backsliding. Strengthening legal protections for activists and journalists, while also fostering international solidarity networks, can safeguard civic space. Meanwhile, expanding media literacy programs in schools and communities will help citizens critically assess news sources and counter misinformation.
Invest in Civic Education – A strong democracy requires an engaged and informed citizenry. Schools should integrate democracy-focused programs, such as mock elections and public debates, while community workshops and digital tools can ensure broader access to civic education for all age groups. Educating both citizens and policymakers on democratic principles fosters long-term resilience and accountability.

Ultimately, democracy’s survival depends on its ability to adapt. By embracing these reforms, societies can ensure that democracy not only withstands today’s challenges but emerges stronger, more inclusive, and better equipped to deliver real solutions.