Electoral politics and the promise of democracy

The limits and potential of elections as a tool for transformation

Dark or light? Salish Sea sunset, December 2023

2024 is the single biggest year for elections in history, affecting over half of the world’s population. In addition to the US and EU, this includes many of the most populous and politically significant countries on the planet, with national elections in India, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan (this week!), Bangladesh, South Africa, and the UK… in addition to a small-but-important election in Taiwan (not to mention the barest pretense of “elections” in countries like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela). At stake are dramatically different visions for our shared future.

So today I want to talk about electoral politics: their potential, their limitations, and some thoughts on how to orient toward this pivotal year. I want to do so in part by focusing on four elections from 2023 that I see as emblematic of the global moment we are in, and possible paths we can take: in Guatemala, Argentina, the Netherlands, and Poland.

TL;DR: Elections matter; and they are not the most important way we can build democracy. Elections serve three purposes, in my view; this post focuses primarily on the first.

1. Building a movement for transformation. Elections are an opportunity to tell a story, to dramatize and make sense of people’s experience and invite them into action. The transformative potential of electoral politics lies primarily in symbolic, cultural, and narrative power. A figure like Donald Trump can almost singlehandedly reshape an entire national narrative and influence the direction of politics for a generation to come.

2. Consolidating gains: steering the mighty ship of state. This also really matters: while I don’t think that institutions are the primary or most useful vehicle for transformation, they absolutely guide and shape incentives and therefore behavior. Changing those incentives, policies, and rules can have massive long-term impacts that can be transformational (e.g. imagine if we had quality universal health care, paid family leave, or guaranteed basic income). As Naomi Klein put it: “I don’t think we can surrender the terrain of the state.”

3. Harm reduction and mitigation. The current slate of elections, in general, do not lead us toward a better future: they prevent us from a worse future. And that matters: we must protect the fragile democracy that we do have, and prevent further backsliding on core rights (abortion, LGBT, a quality education, etc.)

If you value these inquiries—I invite you to consider practicing the gift economy with me. The next gathering for gift economy subscribers is Wednesday, March 6th @9:00 am PT.

---

I have in mind two audiences for this post. My liberal reformist friends, who think electoral politics are all that matters, and who are nervous about transformation. To them I say: I agree that elections matter, but not as much as you think they do, or for the reasons you think they do. And: I invite you to join us in working for transformation. If you want us to vote… join us in creating something worth voting for.

And my progressive/radical friends, who disdain electoral politics as a waste of time. To them I say: I agree that electoral politics aren’t the highest/best use of our time and energy—building movements is far more important. And: elections still matter, both in the present to mitigate harm and in the future as a strategy for transformation that we must attend to.

---

Reform vs Transformation: are we broken?

In 2022 Alana Newhouse coined the term “Brokenism” in a way that unlocked something for me. It was this insight:

The most vital debate in America today is between those who believe there is something fundamentally broken in America, and that it’s an emergency, and those who do not.

Yes, that’s it. I’ve long felt that the Left/Right dichotomy misses the point, and Alana gave language to what I’ve been sensing. I would go further and extend her observation to apply to the whole world: it feels important to me to emphasize that this is NOT a uniquely American phenomenon. We are living through an era with more widespread human protest around the globe than at any time in history… as I chronicled here back in 2019, even before the pandemic and George Floyd.

I titled this section “reform vs transformation” because I think the implications of this assessment are profound. If things are fundamentally fine, then reform is an appropriate response: calls for revolution seem hyperbolic or even dangerous. If in fact everything is on fire, then it is the incrementalist approach that feels out of touch.

It is this difference that explains the deep divide between existing elites (the center-left and center-right coalitions that have shaped global politics over the last 40 years) and those emerging to challenge those elites and claim to represent the people: both the ascendant far-right populism of people like Trump, and the progressive populism of people like Bernie.

It is playing out right now inside the Democratic Party itself. In a recent piece on the identity crisis in the Democratic Party, Ezra Klein quoted Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz:

The coalition we have has people who basically want nothing to change and people who want everything to change.

Yes. That’s it. As far as most people around the world are concerned, the debate is over: the single biggest trend in global politics over the last 40 years in my mind is the widespread abandonment of the “center” as people flee to the poles in search of answers that seem adequate to the moment (the MAGA wing already succeeded in conquering the Republican party: reactionary revolution over conservative moderation). As I discussed in this post on polarization:

Today the poles agree on two things: the current system isn’t working, and radical change is needed.

It’s important to note that this feeling of “brokenness” is a felt sense: it is visceral. We can search for data to confirm our impressions, but it lives in us. The Democratic party can tell us that the economy is booming and that unemployment is low… but we still feel unshakeable precarity. As one person Alana interviewed declared:

The one thing I know that I fundamentally do believe is the premise of your piece, that the dominant institutions of American life—in education, in the arts, in politics—are either totally broken or so weak or corrupt that they’re becoming irrelevant. In a way, the only thing I know that I believe in is … brokenness.

I was always struck that the 2005 movie V for Vendetta ended up being a rallying cry for both the Left and the Right (the latter more surprising as it is a clear critique of fascism/authoritarianism), but the unifying thread is V’s statement in his iconic speech: “The truth is, there is something terribly wrong.”

I assume that most of my readers share my assessment that we are living in a moment that calls for transformation. I believe that both the neoliberal status quo and the rise of ethno-nationalism are dead-ends: there is no path to a sustainable future in either of them. While I think ethno-nationalism is far worse, it’s worth noting that many—not only those on the far right—hold the view that the center status quo is actually the more dangerous threat (Michael Anton famously referred to the 2016 Clinton-Trump matchup as “The Flight 93 election”).

Which means it is incumbent upon those of us who aspire to a world where everyone belongs not only to prevent the worst from happening (Trump) but also to create and offer a more compelling vision than the status quo (Biden).

Electoral politics are a vehicle for movement-building

This is the transformative potential of electoral politics, and what Trump understands. People are scared and lonely and desperate: campaigns can create a container for belonging, an invitation to imagining—and taking action!—to create a better world. My favorite piece about the 2016 election made this point beautifully, describing the particular skill and pageantry that went into Trump’s campaign events. The authors explain:

Trump's campaign was all about creating a particular sense of “us” (articulating a sense of “them” is critical but secondary)… Trump's accomplishment was to take these inchoate feelings of decline and marginalization and to provide a perspective that not only made sense of them but also provided a solution. In so doing, he acknowledged the real problems of his audience (while others ignored them or even contributed to them); he understood them and empowered them to participate in the process of resolving those problems.

Here’s the thing: while the far-right does this well (and takes advantage of weaponizing fear and blaming an “other”), the playbook itself is universal. We too can—and must—build movements of belonging that acknowledge and help people make sense of their pain, and invite them into agency in co-creating a better future. Our task is both more challenging—we must decline the easy appeal of naming a scapegoat—and more promising for that same reason: we can create a movement that includes the 100%.

Obama did this in his campaign, and it swept him to the White House against a better-funded and networked Clinton campaign in the primary. “Yes we can” was a claim both to belonging (seeing ourselves in the “we”), hope in a more promising future, and agency: we are in it together. (While I don’t believe that Obama had transformational politics, as a community organizer he at least understood the importance of building a movement).

A democracy worth wanting?

I love Emily Nagoski’s groundbreaking work on female sexuality. In Come As You Are, she upends the myth of female lack of desire by asking: is the kind of sex you’re having worth wanting? She explains:

It is normal not to want sex you don’t like.

I don’t often talk about democracy, because I find it leaves people cold: the democracy we have is not a democracy worth wanting. We have been taught to equate democracy with the once-every-four-years ritual of casting a ballot between two candidates we don’t like for two parties we know don’t represent our interests. Small wonder that huge numbers of people choose to enact the one form of agency they do have… and opt out.

This is my concern with efforts to galvanize people around a “pro-democracy” movement: the frame feels insufficiently compelling. I loved this recent interview Anand Giridharadas conducted with Ruth Ben-Ghiat, where they wrestle with what for them is the puzzling absence of a mass-scale pro-democracy movement. They get many of the prescriptions right—the need to address people’s very real fears, to offer a positive vision, to create space for joy and for hope—but to me miss the broader point: we don’t have a democracy worth wanting. In general, people don’t take to the streets for democracy: they take to the streets to protect reproductive rights, Black Lives, indigenous land…. for each other, and for things that feel tangible to us.

As Celinda Lake summarized a recent national youth poll here in the U.S. (I believe this sentiment could come from any country in the world today):

Young voters, while they’re very issue oriented, they’re not specifically tied to either party and they think the entire political system is failing.

I actually think there is something profoundly hopeful in that recognition: unlike my generation with Obama, today’s youth won’t make the mistake of believing that our elected “leaders” can save us, or that electoral politics is the most promising path to transformation. As Obama himself said in a 2020 speech to graduating high schoolers:

All those adults that you used to think were in charge and knew what they were doing? It turns out they don’t have all the answers. A lot of them aren’t even asking the right questions. So, if the world’s going to get better, it's going to be up to you.

We have the far more difficult—and far more rewarding—work of building a democracy that is worth wanting. Where we are not only focused on shoring up the crumbling edifice we have (though that too is essential), but on building what we’ve never had: a multiracial democracy that actually meets the needs of all people.

To give but one example: this is playing out right now around abortion rights in the U.S., with Biden promising to “Restore Roe” (for non-U.S. readers, Roe v Wade was the 1973 Supreme Court case that guaranteed the right to an abortion; that decision was overturned by the current Court). But for those of us who believe that bodily autonomy is a core pillar of freedom, this is thin gruel. We don’t want to “restore” fragile protections that left basic human rights open to assault and erosion at the state level: we want a vision for reproductive justice that includes abortion as part of a broader commitment to health care. So sure, let’s “restore Roe” as a minimum standard… but let’s not stop there. I want a democracy… worth wanting.

original art by Micah Bazant (collaboration with Mariame Kaba)

I want to turn my attention now to four case studies from 2023 elections that I think offer us different ways of understanding the promise and limitations of electoral politics. A caveat: I am not an expert in the specific politics or history of Guatemala, Argentina, the Netherlands, or Poland, so what I’m offering here is the perspective of an outside observer trying to distill lessons and trends to the best of my ability based on the insights and analysis I have access to.

Guatemala: the promise of a compelling candidate… and a strong social movement

Let’s start with the best example: the presidential election in Guatemala. My favorite fact about the general election (held in June) was that the leading vote-getter, out of 22 candidates, was: nobody. A protest vote against a corrupt political establishment that seemed immune to change. But when to everyone’s surprise dark horse progressive candidate Bernardo Arévalo advanced to the August runoff—on an anti-corruption campaign targeting kleptocratic elites—he won in a landslide.

And like all progressive advances against entrenched elites, the backlash was immediate and organized, first attempting to disqualify Arévalo’s party, then trying every trick in the book to prevent his inauguration. And likely would have succeeded, but for concerted popular protest, led by indigenous women and youth, who took to the streets to demand that the will of the people be honored. Though Arévalo was finally inaugurated last month, he is clear-eyed that the only prospect for change is with a strong base of popular support, an inside/outside game. He explained:

We are clear that in the current context, we depend on society and convincing them that together we begin to row. We can’t depend on a political system where those criminal and patronage networks still lurk.

Two lessons I want to call out here:

1. The right candidate and platform can mobilize voters and win elections. Crucially, this platform MUST take on entrenched elites and status quo power, and offer a vision that feels transformational.

2. And: to actually win, take power, and effect change, will require ongoing social movements and pressure.

Argentina: if the only choice is status quo or extremism… we choose extremism

This one to me is the most cautionary tale for the United States. In the face of an economic crisis (annual inflation approaching 140% amid crushing external debt obligations), here’s how one report summarized popular opinion:

Argentinians are weary of voting yet again for political parties from either side of the Peronist divide, who have been both dogged by corruption claims and failed to prevent numerous economic crises.

Are we detecting a theme yet? With no compelling viable candidate on the progressive left (the socialist party candidate garnered 2.1% in the first round), the election ended up pitting the incumbent center-left finance minister (whom many blamed for the economic crisis) against a radical outsider in Javier Milei, a self-styled Trump-type who won the endorsement of Brazilian far-right ex-president Bolsonaro. I heard firsthand from Argentinians who think Milei is awful and don’t genuinely believe he can right the ship… but who are so disgusted with status quo politics and parties that out of sheer frustration they nonetheless held their noses and voted for him.

A commenter on one of Christopher Rufo’s posts said it well—to make the link to the U.S. explicit:

When the system is as corrupt as ours a bomb-thrower can do a lot of good because just disrupting that system allows other parts of the republic to regenerate (at the state level, for instance). So we shouldn't let Trump's imperfections deter us from reaping the blessings of a Trump presidency if that's our only real option.

A couple takeaways for me:

1. If the choice is between status quo and extremism—even if the extremism is far-right and dangerous—people may choose extremism.

2. Progressive parties/candidates need to do better than recycling socialism: the path to transformation needs to be more compelling than a politics anchored in theories promulgated by European white men who died hundreds of years ago.

The Netherlands: Argentina, with some xenophobia over migration

I think the story here is similar to Argentina: widespread disillusionment with centrist parties and the status quo leading to the election of a right-wing extremist. As one report put it:

The Netherlands has had a group of around a quarter of the voters who are simply angry and dissatisfied and who want to show the establishment their middle finger.

With one important difference: where the Argentinian election was all about the economy, the Dutch campaign turned on fears around immigration (especially immigration by those deemed “other”: Muslims in particular).

With centrist coalitions unable to offer a sustainable approach for how to handle migration, voters are turning to extremists. Geert Wilders, an openly anti-immigrant far-right populist, won last year’s election, increasing representation in parliament of his far-right party. While the nature of coalitional politics in the Netherlands will constrain his ability to implement the most extreme elements of his platform, the trend is nonetheless deeply troubling. A couple takeaways for me:

1. The question of migration is increasingly determinative, and will be the biggest factor in this summer’s EU elections… even as Trump is trying once again with the current border dispute in Texas to make it the centerpiece of his campaign here. Center left/right parties have no coherent answer (Biden’s policies leave him open to critique both from his progressive base and from scared “moderates” who are leaning right), leaving a vacuum that far-right politicians are filling.

2. There are no single-issue elections. Part of the reason establishment parties can’t address migration is because there is a fundamental contradiction inherent in the capitalist nation-state regime: the free movement of capital (funding resource extraction, propping up authoritarian/kleptocratic states, exacerbating the climate crisis) forces the movement of people. Refugees and climate migrants will continue to increase—nevermind those fleeing wars and collapsing economies in Gaza, Venezuela, Ukraine, and beyond—putting increasing strain on the fragile nation-state regime. We can’t address migration without addressing climate without addressing economics without addressing racial violence and xenophobia. Progressive movements and candidates must offer holistic solutions.

Poland: holding off the worst for now… a narrow window for change

A rare bright spot in European elections last year, a coalition came together to defeat the ruling autocratic party, returning former Prime Minister Donald Tusk to power in what is widely seen as a victory for democracy and the EU.

It’s hard to find a unifying thread amid complex dynamics (Putin’s Russia breathing down your neck and an influx of Ukrainian refugees has a way of making the EU seem more attractive), but a few things are worth noting:

1. It takes a coalition to defeat the far right (the ruling party won a plurality of votes, but the opposition coalition together formed a majority; this may also prove Wilders’ undoing in the Netherlands). And: it’s a temporary solution.

2. Women’s rights matter: the outgoing Polish government launched an assault on LGBT and women’s rights, including the right to abortion, spawning mass protests. Young women in particular voted overwhelmingly for the opposition coalition.

3. Preventing the worst… is not the same as winning. Holding off the far-right is temporary, and not sustainable: where Macron succeeded in fending off Le Pen in France in 2017, it was much closer in 2022… and without significant change to people’s lives (the status quo) the far right will return (see Netherlands, above). Tusk isn’t the answer. This too is my fear with Biden: just because he managed to avert the worst in 2020 doesn’t mean we actually like him—or the Democratic party. As one Polish LGBT activist noted: “Do not confuse happiness with cessation of pain.”

Elections: the path to transformation

If we want to reap the transformative potential of electoral politics, I see a few clear implications; I’d be curious if others agree or draw different conclusions.

1. We must have a compelling candidate who represents and mobilizes the base. Leadership matters: in electoral politics, the candidate becomes the figurehead for the movement.

2. We must have a broad movement for transformation—bigger than and distinct from the campaign itself—that correctly understands the election as only one (and not even the most important) of many strategies for transforming society.

3. The vision offered must be transformational: it must be honest about the challenges we face and bold about the future. It must represent a stark break with the status quo.

4. The movement-backed campaign must do four things:

   1. acknowledge people’s fears and emotions;

   2. help them make sense of this moment;

   3. offer them a sense of hope about the possibility of transformation;

   4. and invite them into collective action to co-create that future.

5. The movement must be inclusive and joyful; the experience of being part of the campaign must feel like a world we want to be part of. Leaving the status quo behind is scary: we must support people in letting go.

In most elections that I’m tracking right now globally (including ours, ugh)… we are NOT doing this. Establishment elites have thus far done a good job holding off effective challenges from transformational progressive candidates (I’m looking at you, Dr. King’s infamous “white moderates”)… thus enabling the elections of transformational (reactionary revolutionaries) from the far-right.

And progressive movements haven’t yet coalesced into a sufficiently coherent/powerful base to compel action and advance our own candidates. This is my favorite definition of politics, via Ted Kolderie (flipping the old adage):

Politics is not the art of the possible. Politics is the art of making possible what is necessary.

Harm mitigation still matters

With precious few exceptions, this is where we find ourselves. Voting not for the future we want, but to slow the slide toward an even worse future: once again invited to cast a ballot for the lesser of two evils. Frankly, I’m insulted that I’m being asked to vote for an 82-year-old white man as the standard-bearer against the threat posed by Donald Trump. And I’m angry that Democratic Party elites have done everything in their power to stifle the progressive wing of the party and stubbornly refused to pass the baton to the next generation. I’m angry that Democrats take my vote for granted, while opposing many of the things I most value.

A vote for Biden is not a vote for transformation. It is a vote for harm mitigation, and that matters. On every issue I care about, the Democratic Party remains better than the Republican Party (admittedly, a very low bar). I think the current bi-partisan immigration deal sucks… and it’s far better than what the GOP wants and would do (and they’ll probably kill it anyway).

And the best way to mitigate harm? To take over the Democratic Party, to offer Americans a genuinely transformational vision, one that offers a path forward, not a dead-end to an imagined past. This is the work of progressive movements everywhere: to not place our hopes or anchor our strategies in electoral politics, but to nonetheless recognize that they are hugely important (and of course this work will look different in parliamentary systems than in our calcified two-party state). I have been most impressed by the work of the Working Families Party in this regard, and movement organizations that build power outside the Democratic party (much of what Stacey Abrams did in Georgia, and other groups highlighted here during the last election).

---

As always, I welcome comments, reactions, and in particular I’m interested in what sense others are making from the current global landscape, and if there are any trends you’d highlight as worth watching.

For subscribers, I hope to see you March 6th for our next community gathering!