What the developing world can teach the US about democracy

kmmpub@gmail.com

To those of us accustomed to living on the edge of democratic norms, in societies riven by tribal distrust and division, the sight of this year’s US election seem dispiritingly familiar. Ironically, developing countries like ours may have some lessons on how the US can emerge from this mess.

If the incumbent US President wins, it will be interpreted as a tacit acceptance of a new norm and the integrity of the American democratic voting system will no longer be viewed as above reproach.

Even if he loses both the election and subsequent drawn-out legal challenges (the second seems likelier by the hour), a substantial part of the American electorate, provided that they take their president’s word at face value, will no longer believe that their vote counted, and may no longer trust the justice system either.

In the next four to eight years, future politicians may come along who are not as shy, humble or constrained by democratic norms as the current occupant of the Oval Office. It wouldn’t take much for one to simply refuse to transfer power – precipitating military or police intervention. Everything we have learned from developing countries shows that once that happens, it is only a matter of time before the country goes full hail Generalissimo.

As economist Tyler Cowen notes: “Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 vote." He cites research by Diana Mutz at the University of Pennsylvania: “Results do not support an interpretation of the election based on pocketbook economic concerns. Candidate preferences in 2016 reflected increasing anxiety among high-status groups rather than complaints about past treatment among low-status groups. Both growing domestic racial diversity and globalisation contributed to a sense that white Americans are under siege by these engines of change.” Though more to the fringe of their party than their right-wing counterparts, the far left seems increasingly eager to adopt counter-institutional proposals: talk of court packing is now mainstream. We’ve seen this dynamic play out before in tribal societies across the post-colonial world.

That’s why regardless of who becomes the next president, if any elected official, journalist or civic leader is seriously interested in restoring US democratic norms and preventing the country from descending into a flawed democracy, they must stop dismissing the other side, listen to their opponents’ fears and present a compelling set of concrete policies that address their worries. This means hearing things which may be xenophobic, racist, sexist or intolerant, and countering it with effective emotional and logical arguments that, crucially, appeals to the listener’s self-interest and makes them feel secure.

This may mean tough compromises on everything from immigration to justice reform. But the rewards could be huge. Imagine if a large bloc of resistant voters in the world’s most powerful country could be convinced that climate change action was in their immediate economic interest and that they could be at the forefront of it and not some kombucha-sipping pinko in SoCal? Or that a group of distrustful left-wing activists could be convinced that the best way to increase legal immigration would be to secure borders against illegal migrants and that strict security could be done in the interests of compassion, not just at the behest of gun-toting yokels?

The next four to eight years will accelerate the trends of greater automation, artificial intelligence and genetic and biological advancement on a continual exponential scale. Although their adoption will result in ever greater mass prosperity, these technologies will also challenge existing status structures, much as globalisation did in the past generation. It is as perfectly capable of leading the world down a path of authoritarianism and Luddism as it is one of a liberal techno-utopia. The business world has already begun to recognise this. The intellectual, media and political world must start deeply questioning their own “mood-affiliation” to policies and opinions and borrow the Silicon Valley problem solving playbook to bridge the political divide.

By no means does this mean compromising deep principles of liberal democracy. By no means either does it mean giving up activism. But it does mean not coming across as self-righteous, listening to deplorable views, and taking the time to comfort people’s fears and explain (not lecture) the importance of those principles with empathy.

The steps the US must now take to heal divisions and bolster its republic are the same that developing nations must take if we are to progress. Small states like those in the Caribbean might even have some lessons for Uncle Sam. As much as anything else, this election is a timely reminder that developing countries must not wait on any powerful benefactor to save us. We must lead by example.

Kiran Mathur Mohammed is a social entrepreneur, economist and businessman. He is a former banker, and a graduate of the University of Edinburgh