Trump and the decay of democratic debate (or American democracy in general)
I believe the discussion about democracy is increasingly being devalued around the world. I don't care much what the sociopolitical system governing a country is called. For me, democracy is the growing, efficient, and binding involvement of citizens in decision-making and accountability processes, or, failing that, the dynamic correspondence between those processes and the popular interest.
Of course, it can't end there, because then we fall into discussions about whether it's right for the citizenry at large to decide, say, the judges of a Supreme Court. Citizens deciding is only relevant and powerful insofar as we're talking about an informed, educated citizenry—hard to sway or manipulate, able to distinguish between facts and the editorializing of those facts, between journalism and propaganda, and so on.
And then there's the sacrosanct matter of the vote, which has been thematized to the point where the possibility of voting or choosing is equated with democracy. Indeed, many Western theorists have addressed the great error of reducing democracy to going to the polls once every two or four years. For example, focusing on the American case—and this is not a critique of the American model per se, as valid as any other—I've always found it interesting that the electorate cannot recall a member of the federal Congress, or that there are no referendum initiatives at the federal level. Because, again, perhaps the most important part of the democratic game begins after that Tuesday or Sunday when one goes to the polls. Or, in any case, in the process by which the offer you vote on is decided.
And this is where the figure of Donald Trump strikes me as interesting, because I'm certain that the best offer available to the American electorate, at least in the last elections, could by no means have resulted in a ballot with Biden and Trump as the protagonists. I'm sure there's something better, and the democratic process, if it's good and sound, healthy, should naturally bring forth that superior offer.
And lastly, there's the issue of public political communication. I don't understand how the erosion Trump represents in this regard doesn't translate into open rejection of his irrational discourse. Take, for example, this wire that AP published today. How many erratic comings and goings have we seen from Trump throughout this war against Iran? Iran has won the game so far beyond all its deaths, because little or nothing of what Trump has said or promised is true or has happened. That Tehran is "desperate" for a deal, that the Strait of Hormuz is open, now that perhaps there's no need to attack further or seek any agreement. Cuba is another case study.
American democracy, I repeat, is a legitimate model, but its implementation will speak ill of it as long as Trump owns the Resolute desk, especially if he keeps opening his mouth as much as he enjoys doing, colluding with the press.
Source for the cover image.
