» Lesen Sie diesen Artikel auf Deutsch
Does American democracy have a future? If we are to believe political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (How Democracies Die), who analyze long-term statistics, the answer is clear: Rich democracies never die; old democracies never die. American democracy will therefore survive even the worst-case scenario of Donald Trump. During his second term, he has pushed it very far in the direction of »competitive authoritarianism”—a façade of democracy like that seen in Russia and Turkey.
In fact, one must go back in American history to the post-Reconstruction era to find a comparable situation. The Southern Democrats, defeated in the Civil War, established a one-party rule in the »Old South.« Although elections were held in name, the opposition Republicans and their African American electorate had no chance whatsoever of ever coming to power because state institutions were all manipulated against them. It took until the 1960s—almost 100 years—for this to change as a result of legislative reforms forced by the civil rights movement. The fact that white Southerners switched to the Republican Party after African Americans finally gained the right to vote, and that the latter have supported the Democrats ever since, is one of the many peculiarities of American politics.
Understanding Populism as a Corrective Mechanism
What is going on with U.S. democracy today? Donald Trump was legitimately elected President of the United States twice: in 2016, due to the electoral system, even though he did not win a majority of the popular vote, and in 2024, a second time with a clear majority (against his better judgment, one might add). More importantly, he was not elected without reason, for—as in other countries where the radical right has been successful—American democracy had simply not »delivered« enough. In this sense, Trump’s successful populism can also be understood as a corrective mechanism within a representative democracy. After all, U.S. free-trade policy has harmed many Americans. The ever-accelerating pace of cultural change poses a major challenge for many (this is not meant to justify the resentments of Christian nationalists). Last but not least: Europeans and others had grown comfortable under the military »protective umbrella« paid for by Americans.
»The midterms can put this faltering democracy back on its feet.«
Trump, however, was certainly not elected to destroy American democracy! Some members of the MAGA movement may go along with whatever their cult-like guru has in mind, and some of the anti-liberal elites and tech bros clearly harbor similar autocratic ideas. Peter Thiel, the newly awarded Axel Springer Prize winner, considers democracy and freedom (meaning his own) to be incompatible. But the vast majority of Americans, including Republicans, want to continue enjoying civil rights in a democracy governed by the rule of law. And because even Trump and the MAGA Republicans aren’t »delivering”—quite the opposite: inflation, war with Iran, the Epstein Files—Americans will take corrective action at the ballot box in November, as they always have. This »buyers‹ remorse« is clearly evident in the dramatically poor poll numbers for Trump and the Republicans.
Elections are therefore the decisive mechanism for restoring a democracy that has fallen on hard times. In the upcoming November »midterms,« not only will all members of the House of Representatives and slightly more than a third of the senators be elected, but also governors, state representatives, and state senators, city council members, and many others. Federalism provides Democrats—who are in the opposition at the federal level—with important power bases that they can use in the future to restore greater equality of opportunity by changing the rules.
Of course, Trump is already trying to sow doubts about the legitimacy of the election in the run-up to the vote: if he or the Republicans lose, then there must have been fraud—a claim he has made regularly for over ten years. What’s more: Trump is pursuing the Republicans‹ traditional attempts at manipulation—such as redistricting, suppressing minority voter turnout by »cleaning up« voter rolls, and erecting administrative hurdles—as if he were on speed. And even though his biggest schemes have been struck down by the courts—the conduct of elections in the U.S. is a matter for the states—it is likely that Trump, as always, will follow the example of his mentor Roy Cohn: never admit defeat.
A Litmus Test for Democracy
Let’s assume that Republicans in the states and in Congress were actually to follow Trump’s lead in attributing a lost election to fraud and refuse to certify the election results or assign seats to the newly elected Democratic representatives and senators until a legal review of the election has taken place. Would American democracy collapse under this head-on attack against the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power? I believe, on the contrary, that it would emerge stronger from this test, just as it will emerge stronger overall from the Trump disaster. Why?
»Even judges appointed by Trump have already proven their independence.«
The discrepancy between Trump’s fantasy world—in which he is the most popular president of all time and his magic consistently leads even Republicans to victory—and the real, grim mood in the country would be so great that citizens and institutions committed to the rule of law would finally awaken from their slumber. The Democrats would, of course, file lawsuits against the Republicans‹ measures, and even if the courts took their time, they would ultimately confirm that the elections were conducted properly. Even judges appointed by Trump have demonstrated their independence in many cases, including those on the Supreme Court. And Trump has complied, albeit reluctantly.
While a general strike or mass civil disobedience would not be expected from the public, American civil society has repeatedly proven that it is capable of protest. The Democrats‹ lawsuits would give the protest the necessary focus. And it would receive the widest possible public attention. The media may be under attack, but it remains diverse and professional—if even Fox News stands up to Trump, as in the case of the arbitrary revocation of press credentials for CNN and others, there is still hope. What would Trump be left with? The use of the military. That cannot be ruled out, but one can hope for the government’s unbelievable incompetence and the soldiers‹ loyalty to the Constitution.