Democracy without Democracy? Institutional Erosion, Polarization, and the Death of Dialogue in the 21st Century

Wesley Sá Teles Guerra

Abstract

Liberal democracy has long been regarded as the most effective political system for mediating divergent interests in complex societies. However, recent transformations—such as the intensification of political polarization, the fragmentation of the digital public sphere, and the rise of leaders with illiberal and conservative tendencies—have called its normative foundations into question. This article analyzes the process of internal erosion in contemporary democracies, arguing that the weakening of political dialogue and the delegitimization of opponents constitute central threats to their sustainability. Drawing on authors such as Levitsky and Ziblatt, Habermas, and Mouffe, it contends that the current crisis is not merely institutional, but above all cultural and discursive.

Introduction

The famous statement by Winston Churchill—“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”—captures the normative consensus that shaped much of the 20th century. However, this consensus rested on a set of often-overlooked assumptions: the existence of strong institutions, adherence to the rules of the game, and, above all, mutual recognition among political adversaries. In recent decades, these assumptions have been progressively eroded. Although regular elections and formal institutional structures persist, there has been a significant decline in the quality of democratic debate. Politics ceases to be conceived as a space for deliberation and becomes instead a terrain of existential antagonism.

Democracy, pluralism, and conflict: theoretical foundations

Modern democracy is based on the articulation between pluralism and regulated conflict. For Jürgen Habermas (1996), democratic legitimacy emerges from rational deliberation in inclusive public spaces, where actors recognize the validity of arguments regardless of power positions. In this sense, dialogue is not a secondary element but constitutive of democracy itself.On the other hand, Chantal Mouffe (2005) proposes an agonistic reading of politics, in which conflict is inherent and inevitable. However, she clearly distinguishes between “antagonism” (relations among enemies) and “agonism” (relations among adversaries). A healthy democracy presupposes the transformation of antagonism into agonism—that is, the acceptance of the other as legitimate, even amid disagreement.When this distinction is lost, the democratic system is put at risk. Situations such as those observed in Brazil during the 2018 elections—when then-candidate Jair Messias Bolsonaro spoke of “machine-gunning” members of the Workers’ Party—illustrate precisely what should not exist within a democracy.

Democratic erosion and institutional capture

Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) demonstrate that contemporary democracies rarely collapse through abrupt coups. Instead, they undergo gradual processes of institutional erosion, often driven by democratically elected leaders. These processes include the delegitimization of the opposition, the weakening of checks and balances, and the instrumentalization of institutions.In this context, the concept of “competitive authoritarianism” (Levitsky & Way, 2010) becomes particularly relevant. These are regimes that formally maintain democratic institutions but where political competition is deeply unequal. Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, Vladimir Putin, Erdoğan, Zelensky, Milei, among others, are vivid examples of this trend. Mario Vargas Llosa’s reference to the “perfect dictatorship” aptly illustrates this type of arrangement: elections exist, but genuine alternation of power is limited.Current developments reveal similar tendencies across different national contexts, albeit with their own specificities. The central problem lies not only in the existence of leaders with authoritarian inclinations, but in their ability to reconfigure the political system from within.

Polarization, social media, and fragmentation of the public sphere

Digital transformation has introduced new challenges to democracy. According to Sunstein (2017), digital platforms foster the formation of “echo chambers,” where individuals are predominantly exposed to content that reinforces their existing beliefs. This phenomenon intensifies polarization and reduces the willingness to compromise.Pariser (2011) had already warned about the effects of algorithms in creating “filter bubbles,” limiting access to divergent perspectives. As a result, the public sphere becomes fragmented into multiple isolated spheres, making it difficult to build minimal consensus.This environment favors the emergence of populist and simplistic discourses, often based on the dichotomy of “us versus them.” As Mudde (2004) argues, populism constructs a moralized narrative of politics in which the “pure people” are opposed to a “corrupt elite” and to “others” perceived as threatening.

Personalization of power and the crisis of representation

Another central element of the contemporary crisis is the increasing personalization of politics. Charismatic leaders tend to concentrate power and weaken political parties as institutional mediators. This phenomenon is associated with a governance logic oriented toward electoral bases, to the detriment of the general interest. Brazil provides a clear example in this regard, as a segment of the population appears willing to support Flávio Bolsonaro primarily as a successor to his father’s populism, despite his lack of substantive political achievements or a comprehensive governing program addressing the broader citizenry—essentially echoing what his supporters wish to hear.Meanwhile, Rosanvallon (2008) argues that modern democracies face a crisis of representation marked by widespread distrust in institutions. In this context, leaders seek legitimacy through a direct relationship with “the people,” bypassing traditional mechanisms of mediation.The result is a transformation of democratic logic: instead of governing for the population as a whole, many leaders prioritize specific segments, deepening social and political divisions.

Conclusion

Contemporary democracy faces a fundamental paradox: it preserves its institutional forms while its normative content is progressively hollowed out. The weakening of dialogue, the delegitimization of opponents, and the instrumentalization of institutions create a scenario of internal erosion that cannot be ignored.More than an institutional crisis, this is a cultural one. The survival of democracy depends not only on formal rules but on a political culture grounded in mutual respect, moderation, and a willingness to compromise.If these elements disappear, democracy risks becoming a mere façade—a system that preserves its rituals but loses its essence—allowing discourses such as those of Donald Trump to persist, or enabling candidates such as André Ventura (Portugal) or Santiago Abascal (Spain) to continue gaining traction and normalization among segments of the population, thereby deepening divisions and undermining democracy. This may also help explain the fascination some of these leaders exhibit toward past dictatorships in their respective countries.

 Hate speech cannot replace political dialogue.

Wesley S.T Guerra

Bibliography

• Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

• Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. New York: Crown.

• Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. London: Routledge.

• Mudde, C. (2004). “The Populist Zeitgeist”. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541–563.

• Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin Press.

• Rosanvallon, P. (2008). Counter-Democracy: Politics in an Age of Distrust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Sunstein, C. R. (2017): Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Wesley Sá Teles Guerra is a professor, writer, and specialist in international cooperation and paradiplomacy, with academic training from internationally recognized institutions. He works as manager of the Triangular Cooperation Fund between Europe, Latin America, and Africa at the Ibero-American General Secretariat (SEGIB) in Madrid, and is the founder of the Center for International Relations Studies (CERES) in Brazil.

Throughout his academic trajectory, he has studied at institutions such as CPE Barcelona (International Negotiations), FESPSP (International Relations and Political Science), the University of A Coruña – UDC (Master’s in Social Policies and Migration), the Massachusetts Institute of Business – MIB (MBA in International Marketing), the University of Andorra (Master’s in Smart Cities), UNIA (European Project Management), and is currently a PhD candidate in Sociology at UNED (Spain).

He is the author of the books Cadernos de Paradiplomacia, Paradiplomacy Reviews, and International Relations Survival Manual. He regularly participates in international forums on smart cities, global governance, and paradiplomacy, and has also been a guest commentator on the CBN Recife radio station and a finalist for the ABANCA Academic Research Award.

He is also a member of international networks and platforms such as CEDEPEM, ECP, Smart Cities Council, and REPIT, where he actively contributes to collaborative projects and debates on institutional innovation and international relations.