Dear Chicago Center on Democracy community,
America has just concluded an election campaign during which a majority of voters, whichever their preferred party, believed that our democracy is at risk. In response to a survey question, posed in late 2023, which asked, “How well would you say American democracy is working in the United States these days?,” 41% of Democrats, 57% of independents, and 61% of Republicans responded “not at all” or “not very well.” Why are we fearful? And, as we anticipate a new presidential administration, how can we help prevent our fears coming true?
The Chicago Center on Democracy is dedicated to the study of democracy: what it is, how it works, and what it looks like when it erodes. We are also committed to the dissemination of this information to the broader public. As the Center’s director, and in this moment of uncertainty, I therefore share these thoughts.
To identify systemic threats, we need to first define what democracy is. The most compact definition, favored by many political scientists, is that it is political system in which the leadership is chosen in free and fair elections, in which nearly all adult citizens have the right to vote. Since many autocracies also hold elections, it is important to stress that, in democratic elections, the governing party can be defeated and, when it is, it will step aside and allow the peaceful transition of power to the opposition.
Even this compact definition explains why many Americans worry about the health of our democracy. That elections are “free and fair” in our country is something that many have come to doubt. Donald Trump’s baseless claims of widespread fraud, in three subsequent presidential elections, have stirred distrust among a large swath of the electorate – between one-quarter and one-third of us, according to polls. Furthermore, efforts to impose restrictions on voters, or otherwise break the country’s election machinery, have bred distrust among other citizens.
The compact definition of democracy cited above stresses the peaceful transfer of power from incumbents to opponents. When, on January 6, 2021, a violent mob, egged on by the losing candidate, attempted to stop the transfer of power, the status of the United States as a democracy hung by a thread.
Doubts and distrust were not quelled in our most recent campaign, when candidate Trump again made scurrilous and baseless claims of planned or ongoing fraud.
The election season has ended, and we now face the problem of protecting democracy in the ensuing months and years. Democracy, after all, is not just about elections. What are the dangers that might loom in the near future?
To answer this question, it is helpful to turn from the compact definition to a more expansive set of criteria for democracy. The Bright Line Watch initiative—a collaboration between our center and researchers at Dartmouth College and the University of Rochester—has been polling political science experts since 2017, to gauge which dimensions of democracy they consider essential, and which are more incidental. Bright Line Watch asks these same questions to samples of members of the public, with roughly similar responses. Some dimensions most widely viewed as essential – “a country cannot be considered democratic without this” – have to do with elections: are they free and fair, do all adult citizens have the right to participate, do all votes have an equal impact on the outcome?
Other essential features, less directly related to elections, include:
- that government agencies are not used to monitor, attack, or punish political opponents;
- that government does not interfere with journalists or news organizations;
- that law enforcement investigations of public officials are free from political influence or interference;
- that government effectively prevents private actors from engaging in politically-motivated violence or intimidation.
During the campaign that just ended, President-elect Trump made statements that suggested plans to violate each of these essential criteria. Far from eschewing the use of government agencies to monitor, attack, or punish opponents, Trump promised retribution against political opponents whom he viewed as having crossed him. Far from committing to non-interference with the press, the President-elect continued to savage it with epithets and entertained the idea of journalists being targeted by armed assailants. He sometimes encouraged private armed groups, for instance by describing those convicted of crimes as “political prisoners” and promising to pardon them for January 6-related convictions.
Trump complains that, in his first term, his plans were frequently thwarted by civil servants with their own agendas. Project 2025 outlines a program to replace suspect civil servants with people loyal to the president. The change would undo more than a century of reforms that gradually reshaped the American state from a patronage machine to a modern institution – not perfect, certainly, but staffed by professionals who accomplished the monumental task of operating vast and complex organizations that strive to bring us clean water and safe highways, among other benefits. Patronage bureaucracies, like the one that would result from the Project 2025 vision, would take us back to a bloated bureaucracy resembling Italy’s in the post-War decades and several South American states today.
Which of these and other democracy-busting promises and statements the President-elect will carry through on is an open question. He may be that rare breed of politician whom many people vote for hoping that he will not make good on his promises. Survey data will teach us much more in the coming days about the reasons for Trump’s electoral success. But political scientists, like the University of Chicago’s Professor John Mark Hansen, remind us about the key role of “fundamentals” – factors like inflation, real-income growth, and the popularity of the incumbent – in election outcomes. In the past, these factors have been shown to matter more than campaign statements or candidates’ character for how people vote in presidential elections. If this interpretation is correct, Trump’s electoral strength has more to do with perceived under-performance of the incumbent Biden-Harris administration than with Americans’ thirst for a leader who winks at autocratic actions.
Many are discouraged with the absence of constraints or “guardrails” that the Trump administration will face if it indeed pursues a democracy-eroding agenda. The Supreme Court’s decision last summer in the Trump immunity case appears to insulate the President-elect, and all presidents who follow him, from legal consequences for violations of the law.
But still, there are opportunities for all of us to contribute to the resilience of democracy in the United States. Journalists can investigate, bar associations can punish, social scientists can analyze, and civil society groups can report and litigate. However weakened the tools these groups have for enforcing democracy, we proceed at our own peril if we fail to wield them bravely and skillfully. And for each of us, as citizens, we can help support a culture of democracy by continuing to learn, sharing what we know, and knitting together an inclusive community.
Toward that end, I invite you all to stay involved in the Chicago Center on Democracy. We have organized a number of events for the coming days related to U.S. democracy, and, as always, please feel free to reach out with any ideas for events or activities that you’d like us to help organize.
Yours, in supporting democracy together,
Susan Stokes
Director, Chicago Center on Democracy