By Simone Galimberti*
KATHMANDU, Nepal | 11 September 2026 (IDN) —What does it mean, these days, holding a special day commemorating democracy? As the 15 September is celebrated internationally as the International Day of Democracy, finding answers to this question must be a priority.
As democracy as it has been practiced and experienced since the end of the Second World War, is turning into a more and more feeble way of government, finding answers to this question can lead us to a broader reflection on the future of liberal democracies.
In many instances, as we are witnessing the dangerous rise of far right parties in Germany and throughout Europe, democracy is under assault while totalitarian and authoritarian nations are on the rise, proving their resilience and appeal.
In the so called Global North, especially in Europe, citizens are getting more and more anxious by economic decline on the one hand, and by the dangerous prospects of military conflicts, on the other.
In developing and emerging nations, people are often dealing with corrupt and inefficient politics that thrives on periodic elections that risk of perpetually projecting to powers inept and incapable politicians.
In both cases, governance systems, anchored and centered on democracy, are struggling to deliver.
Democracy Under Pressure in a Changing World
There is a crisis of governance and the classic model of electoral democracy where citizens, through elections, delegate power to full time representatives, is proving unable to meet the expectations of the voters.
At the same time, amid this governance gap, citizens are falling prey to extreme positions that offer easy answers to complex problems.
We are witnessing the flourishment of the art of pursuing populistic politics that are finding fertile ground throughout the west.
The fact that persons read less and less and are not any more showing the same interest to the public interest by getting updated and informed and opinionated through news reading, is also a factor compounding the overall democratic crisis.
The use of social media is certainly a contributor and enabler of this reading decline.
A research from University of Florida and University College London found that daily reading for pleasure in the United States fell 40 % over the past two decades. Researches shows that the advent of digital era is a key factor in this decline.
The arrival of artificial intelligence poses another great threat to democratic societies and not only if this new transformative and disruptive technology will adversely impact the job market.
AI can be used, literally speaking way, to disrupt the ways democratic polities function as it can leveraged to create dissent and anarchy by pounding massive levels of disinformation and misinformation in the society.
Therefore, international days like this one should help us remind the value of important issues and democracy is definitely a key one.
But, in matter of democracy, is also essential going beyond these short term, one-off occasions because getting democracy right must be seen an imperative, an indispensable task that we cannot pretend that it does not exist.
Because democracy is the main enabler for prosperity and development that respect the voice of the citizens.
It is often not the fastest system in terms of delivering tangible results for the people.
It can be frustrating and painfully slow.
But, at the very least, notwithstanding its weaknesses, democracy is empowering the people, offering agency to them.
Listening to, involving and engaging the citizens is at the center of this year commemoration of the International Day of Democracy.
The Authoritarian Alternative and Its Limits
It is tempting and often convenient to shrug off the importance of freedom of expression.
The model that totalitarian and authoritarian nations have embraced is based on an informal social contract that totally disregards these inalienable rights.
For leaders of these nations, top down, turbocharged development brings immediate results that, admittedly, very often, are excellent.
Yet these systems cannot accept any type of criticism or divergent opinion.
I do struggle to understand their complete and total rigidity in pushing back so efficiently against even some modicum elements of free expression.
It is not that western model of democracy based on elections has to be accepted by these countries or can be imposed on them.
Each nation is free to pursue its own model of governance.
Look at what the Chinese Communist Party succeed at building in terms of efficient, effective, reliable institutions that can deliver.
The sheer complexity of Chinese political system, with its totally different operational way of working and its capacity to operate seamlessly, is unique.
Yet the institutions and mechanisms underpinning such type of systems are marked by total opposition towards opinions and ideas that counter the mainstream way of thinking imposed from the top.
But why being so fixated with a very tight and strict vigilante type of control that harasses the citizens any time that they are trying to express views that counter the official narrative?
Maybe these governments suffer of an inherent insecurity and anxiety that is embedded in their ways of conducting politics, and this is an intrinsic aspect of their modus operandi.
So listening to the people and giving people a space to channel their criticism or dissent become not only too risky for them.
It end up also hurting the inner egos of the leaders running these systems.
In a way, it is possible to assume that these systems are much more fragile than the image that, so vigorously, are trying to first protect and then project.
It is hard to foresee the viability of this model and the strength of its underlying social contract if the state machinery stops delivering following an economic downturn or some other major events.
My personal hope is that these systems that reject any forms of freedom of expression, could find, through a gradual process, their own ways to open up and enable some decent degrees of flow of free expression.
Yet for now, the overall outlook and prospects of this way of governing is upbeat.
From Electoral Democracy to Citizen Participation
The hard work falls upon the traditional democracies both in the Global South and in Global North.
They are the ones being tested and under stress.
Democracy, as we know it, must evolve and change.
It must upgrade itself by embracing elements of participatory practices that meaningfully can involve and engage the citizenry.
An answer to this ongoing crisis is offered by deliberative practices that are spreading around the world.
Citizens’ assemblies are the central feature of this diverse deliberative ecosystem.
While there are many ways of organizing such bodies, they are all based on principles of inclusion, equality, respect and dialogue.
Unfortunately these experiences suffer of their own Achilles’ heel.
It is true that many of these experiences are substantial as they offer their members a space to listen, discuss and come up with decisions based on reason.
Yet the fact that the vast majority of them do not have enforcing powers that their deliberations end up just being recommendations, pose a reputational problem.
As consequence, they are at risk of being seen just as mere performative tools.
Ideally citizens’ assemblies but with binding powers can complement the existing election based models and be institutionalized and mainstreamed into the current systems, upgrading it, making them more inclusive and participatory.
Then, the participants of these mechanisms, all chosen in ways that ensure inclusion and representations of all the members of the society, would start being taken seriously.
The goal would be to consider the members of these assemblies as “citizens legislators” a concept that Hélène Landemore, a professor of political science at Yale University and author of “Politics Without Politicians: The Case for Citizen Rule”, wrote about together with Théophile Pénigaud.
Reimagining Democracy Through the SDGs
At the same time, we should remind ourselves that somehow, almost miraculously, the SDG framework contains a target very much related to better, deeper forms of decision making.
And “Target 16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels” can become a big game changer if pursued.
Unfortunately it one of the least talked components of the whole SDGs Framework. It is true that the United Nations cannot do much in the business of promoting democracy.
The United Nations Democracy Fund, UNDEF, remains a small component in the vast constellations of the UN eco-system and no one knows if it will be able to survive long. Even if it does, UNDEF should not only expand and scale up but these are goals that, at the moment, seem unattainable at the moment.
Yet, this mechanism that supports small grassroots projects around the world, even with the same level of resources to disburse, can change by embracing new practices that dare to challenge the status quo in the field of electoral democracy.
It could start by opening a call for funding to implement, on pilot basis, actions aligned to Target 16.7 and, for instance, it could start supporting citizens’ assemblies around the world. If these two ideas are embraced, then UNDEF could make a tangible, even if small, difference.
To conclude, answering the initial question of this piece brings me to think that this special day, like many others, have many limitations.
Yet considering the current status of democracy worldwide, then this celebration could be turned into a real special and unique reckoning moment, a call for action to reimagine and implement better forms of citizens centered decision making.
The reason is simple: democracy, while not as fast as other models, brings people together and represents the highest expression of the capacities of the people to govern themselves. The problem is that right now it is not only too rusty but also destined to become, sooner than many of us can imagine, too dysfunctional.
Yet there is hope that a broad and ambitious renewal of democratic practices can unfold and unleash a new model of citizens’ decision making, proving that going slow is not always the worst option to govern.
It can actually be the best.
*Simone Galimberti is the pro bono co-founder of The Good Leadership. [IDN-InDepthNews]