Democracy Is Us: Protecting the Fragile System of Democracy
A doer’s guide for everyday citizens to recognise, resist, and repair democratic erosion, before it’s too late.
Los Angeles 2025 - you’re likely seeing a steady stream of images on your social media feeds: journalists and cameramen being hit by rubber bullets, protesters clutching signs being beaten back by baton-wielding police on horseback and armed marines, opposing anti-immigration raids masked as “national security.” Sirens scream, drones buzz, and livestreams capture a nation fracturing in real time. Then comes the “Kings March” on 14 June 2025, a likely parade of Trump loyalists chanting for authoritarian power. Sounds more like North Korea, doesn’t it? As hundreds of No Kings marches rally across the US later today, democracy teeters.
This is not a drill. This is real: globally, democracies are under threat, facing disinformation, populism, and power grabs. The EIU's 2024 Democracy Index reports a decline in the global average democracy score to 5.17 out of 10, marking the lowest point since the index's inception in 2006.
This decline reflects a trend of democratic backsliding, with more countries experiencing erosion in democratic practices and institutions. These findings underscore the fragility of democratic systems worldwide and the importance of vigilant efforts to protect and strengthen democratic institutions and values.
Australia’s not immune: despite our 2025 federal election result, our democratic systems remain fragile at local, state, and federal levels – open to disinformation, manipulation, and corruption.
All of this got me thinking: How do democracies fail? Who’s behind it? What can we do to protect democracy? Well, last week, I was fortunate to hear a presentation given by Lydia Khalil, a Lowy Institute research fellow and expert on political violence, who maps democratic erosion using a systems approach. It was very timely and very informative.
Drawing on Lydia’s expertise in democratic resilience and Albert Bandura’s mechanisms of moral disengagement, I have attempted to go some way to answering these questions because democracy isn’t separate from us - we are the democracy.
Lydia Khalil’s Lens: Mapping Democracy’s Fragility
Lydia Khalil, a research fellow at the Lowy Institute and an expert on political violence and democratic decline, has mapped how democracies erode using a systems approach. Her work, including the Lowy Institute’s Digital Threats to Democracy project and her advisory roles with the United Nations and Australian counterterrorism agencies, shows how economic, technological, and governance failures weaken democratic systems. Khalil’s systems map helps us see democracy as a fragile web of institutions, rules, and values that can fray under pressure. I have added in Albert Bandura’s eight mechanisms of moral disengagement as an overlay, which allows us to assess how actors justify actions that undermine democracy, masking their intentions and obscuring harmful outcomes.
The WHY: Conditions That Fragilise Democracy
Definition: Conditions that fragilise democracy are structural or contextual factors that create vulnerabilities in democratic systems, weakening their resilience and enabling antidemocratic forces to gain traction. These factors disrupt social cohesion, institutional trust, or equitable governance, creating fertile ground for erosion. Democracy becomes fragile when conditions create openings for antidemocratic forces. Elements include:
Economic Inequality: Economic inequality refers to the unequal distribution of wealth, income, or resources within a society, often measured by metrics like the Gini coefficient or wealth concentration. It undermines democratic trust by fostering perceptions of unfairness, fuelling resentment, and amplifying populist or authoritarian appeals that exploit economic grievances.
Big Technology Shifts: Big technology shifts describe rapid advancements in digital platforms, particularly social media, that reshape information flows and public discourse. These shifts can fragilise democracy by enabling rapid spread of disinformation, polarising communities, and bypassing traditional gatekeepers of accurate information, thus eroding shared truths.
Ineffective Governance: Ineffective governance occurs when public institutions fail to deliver transparent, accountable, or equitable services, often due to corruption, mismanagement, or political gridlock. This weakens democratic legitimacy by fostering public cynicism and creating opportunities for populist or antidemocratic actors to exploit distrust.
Crises and Emergencies: Crises and emergencies are acute events e.g. natural disasters, pandemics, economic shocks, and lawlessness, that strain democratic systems. They can fragilise democracy by justifying expanded executive powers, reducing oversight, and creating public fear, which antidemocratic actors exploit to consolidate control under the guise of stability.
The WHO: Actors Undermining Democracy
Definition: Actors are individuals, groups, or entities whose actions, intentional or unintended, contribute to democratic erosion. They may exploit conditions or processes, often rationalising harmful actions through moral disengagement mechanisms like moral justification or dehumanisation. Actors exploit fragility, rationalising via Bandura’s mechanisms. Elements include:
Social Movements: Social movements are collective, organised efforts to promote or resist change, often driven by shared grievances. They can undermine democracy when they polarise society, dehumanise opponents, or promote antidemocratic ideologies, amplifying division through emotionally charged rhetoric or actions.
Political Parties: Political parties are organised groups that compete for power through elections. They can erode democracy by prioritising power over democratic norms, using disinformation, or enacting policies that suppress participation, often justified as serving the public good.
Charismatic/Corrupt Leaders: Charismatic and/or corrupt leaders are individuals who leverage personal appeal or unethical conduct to influence public opinion or policy. They erode democracy by spreading disinformation, minimising harm, or consolidating power, often rationalising actions as necessary for stability or progress.
Third-Party Proxies and Corporations: Third-party proxies and corporations are non-governmental entities, such as advocacy groups or businesses, that influence democratic processes through funding, lobbying, or disinformation. They erode democracy by diffusing responsibility for harmful actions, often prioritising profit or ideology over public interest.
External Actors: External actors are foreign entities like governments, organisations, or operatives that interfere in a nation’s democratic processes through disinformation, cyberattacks, or funding antidemocratic forces. They erode democracy by sowing distrust and destabilising institutions to advance geopolitical interests.
Citizens/Voters: Citizens and voters are the public whose participation or disengagement shapes democratic outcomes. They can undermine democracy through apathy, low turnout, or susceptibility to disinformation, enabling antidemocratic actors to gain influence without broad resistance.
The HOW: Processes of Erosion
Definition: Processes are mechanisms or strategies, often subtle or legal, through which democratic norms and institutions are undermined. These processes exploit conditions and involve actors, frequently justified by moral disengagement to mask antidemocratic intent. Erosion occurs through mechanisms justified by moral disengagement:
Antidemocratic Power Gains: Antidemocratic power gains occur when actors expand control through legal or quasi-legal means, such as executive orders or legislation, reducing institutional checks. These actions are often framed as necessary for the public good, using euphemistic language to obscure harm.
Electoral Integrity Erosion: Electoral integrity erosion involves actions that compromise free and fair elections, such as voter suppression, gerrymandering, or disinformation. These undermine public confidence in electoral outcomes, often justified as protecting election security.
Populist Appeals: Populist appeals are rhetorical strategies that frame issues as a battle between “the people” and a vilified elite or outgroup, often dehumanising opponents. They erode democracy by polarising society and undermining pluralistic norms, rationalised as representing the majority’s will.
Laws Undermining Rights: Laws undermining rights are legislative measures that restrict freedoms, such as speech, protest, or privacy, under the guise of security or public order. They erode democracy by limiting civic participation and dissent, often justified as protecting societal stability.
Disinformation and Media Manipulation: Disinformation and media manipulation involve spreading false or misleading information to shape public opinion, often through controlled or biased media. They erode democracy by distorting shared truths, blaming scapegoats, and reducing informed decision-making.
Violence and Intimidation: Violence and intimidation are physical or psychological tactics used to suppress dissent or influence democratic processes. They erode democracy by creating fear, silencing opposition, and disrupting civic engagement, often rationalised as maintaining order.
The Outcomes of Democratic Erosion: What’s at Stake?
Definition: Outcomes are the consequences of unchecked democratic erosion, resulting from conditions, actors, and processes. These outcomes manifest as systemic failures that threaten democratic stability, public trust, and societal cohesion. Elements include:
Weakened Institutions: Weakened institutions occur when democratic checks e.g. courts, media, electoral bodies, etc. lose independence or effectiveness due to erosion processes. This outcome reduces accountability, enabling unchecked power and undermining democratic resilience.
Loss of Trust: Loss of trust is the decline in public confidence in democratic institutions, processes, or leaders, often resulting from corruption, disinformation, or polarisation. This outcome fosters apathy or extremism, weakening democratic participation.
Polarisation: Polarisation is the deepening divide between societal groups, driven by ideological, cultural, or economic differences. This outcome erodes democratic pluralism by reducing compromise and amplifying conflict, often fuelled by disinformation or populist rhetoric.
Authoritarianism: Authoritarianism is the drift toward centralised, unaccountable power, where democratic norms are supplanted by executive dominance or suppressed dissent. This outcome results from power gains and weakened checks, threatening democratic freedoms.
Violence and Extremism: Violence and extremism are the escalation of conflict into physical or ideological radicalism, often driven by polarisation and distrust. This outcome destabilises democracy by fostering unrest and legitimising coercive responses, undermining civic order.
System Loops: A Cycle
As you review this system and the list of elements, images, experiences, stories – the examples that cause democratic erosion - are likely flashing through your mind, past and present. Khalil’s work shows cycles: power grabs, institutional imbalance, divisions, low faith, and violence.
In the US today, we are witnessing the same cycle that was played out in 1930s Germany. The ‘Kings Parade’ and the deployment of the National Guard and the US military are no accident. These, and other actions, are deliberate attempts to overthrow democracy in favour of authoritarianism and fascism. This is not a drill – this is real.
Highlighting what bad actors do to destroy democracy is vital if we are to protect our democratic rights because the erosion happens slowly over time; it creeps up on us, and then, when it’s upon us, it becomes too late to defend. Our democracy is lost.
Forewarned is forearmed. I have been calling out the rise of authoritarianism and fascism for years now, only to be told I was being an alarmist. Well, here we are.
The evidence is clear. Lydia Khalil’s system of democratic erosion helps us understand what is happening and then put in place the mechanisms to protect our democracies.
The Current State of Democracy in the World - Why Care?
Healthy democracies deliver fairness, protect rights, and ensure our voices matter. Democracy decides wages, healthcare, and freedoms. Robodebt’s harm and the Voice’s divisiveness show how failures hit home. If we let democracy erode, we lose control over our lives.
As of 2024, the global state of democracy is experiencing significant challenges. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Democracy Index, the world comprises 167 countries and territories, categorised as follows:
Full Democracies: 24 countries
Flawed Democracies: 50 countries
Hybrid Regimes: 34 countries
Authoritarian Regimes: 59 countries
This classification indicates that only about 44% of nations are considered democracies (either full or flawed), while approximately 56% are categorised as hybrid or authoritarian regimes.
Furthermore, the EIU's 2024 Democracy Index reports a decline in the global average democracy score to 5.17 out of 10, marking the lowest point since the index's inception in 2006.
This decline reflects a trend of democratic backsliding, with more countries experiencing erosion in democratic practices and institutions.
In terms of population, the V-Dem Institute's 2024 Democracy Report highlights that more than one-third of the world's population lives under authoritarian rule, with significant populations in countries like China and Russia. Additionally, the report notes that the level of democracy enjoyed by the average person has regressed to levels last seen in 1985, underscoring the global challenges facing democratic governance.
These findings underscore the fragility of democratic systems worldwide and the importance of vigilant efforts to protect and strengthen democratic institutions and values.
What I’ve Learned and How We Can Do Better
Since actively diving headfirst into politics in 2020, I’ve met incredible people - activists, analysts, number-crunching nerds, and ordinary citizens who fight for our democracy in Australia. But I’ve also encountered schemers and other dubious characters who’d make you question humanity. Politics can be a circus but ignoring it hands power to the worst actors.
Khalil’s work shows democracy’s fragility; Bandura’s mechanisms reveal how bad actors justify harm. By understanding conditions, actors, processes, and cycles, we can act.
Ordinary Australians can protect democracy by voting thoughtfully, using AEC candidate records, and demanding better from our elected politcians. Supporting quality independent media to cut through spin. Joining community groups to amplify our voices like the growing number of people joining their local Voices of groups to demand better local representation and democracy. Demanding accountability and call out leaders who dodge responsibility or dehumanise opponents. Backing policies reducing inequality and regulating tech. We don’t need to love politics, but we must engage to protect our fragile democratic systems at local, state and federal levels.
Be a Doer, Not a Bystander
Engaged and disengaged voters alike, none of us are separate from democracy – we are democracy.
As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I stepped into politics reluctantly in 2020, driven by change, not power. You don’t need to be a political junkie to care about democracy, but we do need to recognise it’s our system - our voice, our future. By understanding its fragility, rejecting moral disengagement, and taking small steps, we can protect it.
So, I’m encouraging everyone to understand the system and step up to be a democracy doer and defender.
Onward we press.
Resources
Lydia Khalil, Lowy Institute:
Lowy Institute, ongoing. Digital Threats to Democracy Project.web:https://www.lowyinstitute.org/people/experts/lydia-khalil
Lowy Institute, August 29, 2022. Rise of the Extreme Right.web:https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/rise-extreme-right-new-global-extremism-threat-democracy
Lowy Institute, January 24, 2025. Global military trends.web:https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/middle-east-balance-power-2025
Albert Bandura’s Moral Disengagement:
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.web:generic
Bandura, A. (2016). Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves. Worth Publishers.web:generic
Other Sources
Sue, thank you once again. Examples did indeed come to this reader’s mind again & again. I’m still processing the up close & local experiences of the last election and your framework provides some welcome distance & broader view. I’ll be reading your piece again & again.