Mediaboss Marketing

Self-proclaimed democratic socialist Bernie Sanders is one of three candidates still vying for his partys presidential nomination.

When the Vermont senator calls himself a democratic socialist, he refers to Franklin D. Roosevelts philosophy that the government should take responsibility for the health, well-being and security of American citizens, says Barnard College political science professor Sheri Berman.

This means democratic socialists in the U.S. support a generous welfare state which today includes policies like universal health care and free college education, she says.

But when Sanders critics call him a socialist, they mean something quite different. President Trump and other Republicans often use the word socialism as a slur, conflating it with communism.

During Franklin Roosevelts presidency, socialism was often linked to Soviet Union policies. Now, Berman says the theory is associated with countries like Venezuela and North Korea where the government also controls the economy and doesnt allow its citizens political freedom.

For Republicans, both then and now, socialism is something much scarier, she says. We're talking about two very, very different things but oftentimes using the same term.

Sanders often talks about Scandanavian countries like Denmark as a model of democratic socialism. These countries have long-standing democratic socialist parties and some consider themselves a social democracy, she says.

In Europe, the presence of a social democratic party helps citizens better define the term and understand what policies social democrats stand for, but in America, its less clear, she says.

Because we've never had a party that has called itself social democratic or democratic socialist, the term is much more difficult to pin down, she says.

Roosevelts New Deal is the closest thing to a social-democratic movement or policy in the U.S., she says. Roosevelt put policies in place to protect both capitalism and democracy, which is more comparable to Elizabeth Warrens platform than Sanderss call for revolution, she says.

He sought to mitigate capitalisms negative effects out of fear that if they grew too severe, citizens would lash out against both capitalism and democratic governments for not being able to deal with those consequences, she says.

But Roosevelt avoided the socialist label because he understood the terms negative resonance in the U.S., Berman says. Though he never called himself a socialist, his policies echoed what social democrats were advocating for in parts of Europe during the 1930s.

Europes democratic socialists grew out of Marxism, she says, as did communism. But after the 19th century, the two ideologies grew in different directions regarding democracy.

Communists didnt believe in democracy, free markets or private property, while social democrats were some of the strongest advocates for democracy in Europe, she says.

Social democrats accepted capitalism, she says, but knew the government needed to protect citizens from its negative downsides for this economic system to work.

Today in the U.S., Berman says the support for Sanders and the idea of democratic socialism stems from the 2008 financial crisis and everything that succeeded it including growing income inequality, declining social mobility and increased geographic divides particularly between young people based on whether they could afford college.

Americans who feel insecure and disaffected are gravitating toward socialist ideas since most capitalist critiques of the 19th century emerged from socialism, she says.

Critiques of capitalism, not surprisingly, tend to arise at times when significant numbers of people feel the system is not working for them, she says.

On the difference between the terms liberal and progressive

That's a hard question to answer separate from context. In this country, liberal and progressive are often used interchangeably. Although in this election cycle, progressive has been stressed much more than liberal, simply because I think a lot of people think of liberal now as somehow tainted with the liberal globalized order in Europe. Of course, liberal has a different connotation than in the United States. It's much more hooked up with or linked to a classical liberal tradition, one that actually favors things like free trade, but also protection of individual rights and things of that nature. So a lot of these terms have been used for so long and in so many different contexts that it is often hard to pin them down.

On populism

We're seeing [populism] again come back in full force in this election cycle, not only because Trump is often referred to [as] a populous, but growing numbers of people feel like there are some aspects of Sanders' appeal that should be characterized as populist. And by that, they generally mean not just a strong anti-establishment message, but a sort of sense that, you know, the polity or society is divided into good and bad, that there's some kind of elite that is blocking somehow the sort of needs and demands of the masses from being heard, that there is some kind of evil cabal. Again, that's kind of working behind the scenes to kind of undermine democracy. So there are some aspects of that that we can see in the Sanders campaign a little bit. We can certainly see it in Trump's rhetoric and appeal, and we see it in a wide variety of parties, mostly on the right in Europe and also other parts of the world.

On her belief that Warren is a progressive but not a democratic socialist or a liberal

I think that that's really where she's trying to position herself as the kind of, you know, person at the crosscurrents of all of these different trends and debates that are going on within the Democratic Party. Now, look, she has made very clear that actually in some ways she's closer to what Roosevelt said and did because she claims she's a capitalist and that the incredible number of policy proposals that she's put forward are not designed to so much transform the system from capitalists to something else, but rather to sort of save it from itself to kind of correct all of the negative consequences that it's had.

Julia Corcoranproduced and edited this interview for broadcast withKathleen McKenna.Allison Haganadapted it for the web.

See the rest here:
What Democratic Socialism Means In The US | Here & Now - Here And Now

The mainstream media imposes some serious certainties on the 2020 presidential election that drive me into a furious despair, e.g.:

Even though Bernie Sanders, winner of the first two Democratic primaries, is now leading in the national polls, he cant and wont be the partys nominee because in coming weeks, writesLiz Peekin The Hill, Democrats will make sure that Socialist Bernie does not get the nomination. More will realize that he will lead the party to a calamitous loss, and they will look for an alternative. Overwhelmed by ads, underwhelmed by others in the race, they will come to realize that Mike Bloomberg is the best theyve got.

Hey progressives, America is not a socialist country! Get it?

As this certainty imposes itself on the election coverage, in both obvious and subtle ways, I find myself juxtaposing it with another emerging tidbit of news:

Parts ofOrgan Pipe Cactus National Monumentthe part s with indigenous burial grounds and other rare, historically important areasare being bulldozed and blown up to make way for the border wall that Mexico is supposedly going to pay for.

The Trump border wall proceeds, slicing through, and destroying, a complex ecological wonder that also happens to be indigenous sacred ground. The wall, writes evolutionary biologistKelsey Yule, is turning the landscape into an ecological dystopia.

The Department of Homeland Security is leveling this precious habitat with absolutely no regard for the delicacy of this places unique cultural and ecological resources, ravaging one of the most iconic sites in the Western hemisphere. Theyre even blowing up mountains like Monument Hill. . . .

And: "Over the last few months, the Trump administration has been draining millions of gallons of groundwater to mix the walls concrete."

Furthermore the $5.7 billion wall is cutting directly through the soul of theTohono Oodham Nation, an indigenous people whose ancestral land in the Sonoran Desert, approximately the size of Connecticut, spans both the United States and Mexico. Too bad. The Department of Homeland Security rules and its going to build the damn wall no matter what.

As Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva put it: To DHS, nothing is sacred.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

Well, thats not quite true. The bureaucracy is sacred. No matter now stupid and destructive they are, the rules are sacred. The border is sacred. And this same mentality, so I believe, is doing everything it can to ensure that the progressive base of the Democratic Partyrepresented, to a large extent, by Bernie Sandersremains on the wrong side of the wall, barred from having an actual influence on the American political process.

Elections arent supposed to be about core values. Those values are already decided and Socialist Bernie (psst, socialist is the same thing as communist) doesnt get to mess with them.

These values, of course, mean as little as where you were born. These values are about who has power. Big Money rules and will always rule, right? Thus the election coverage doesnt look deeply beneath the surfaceat who we are or how we ought to relate to the planet and to life itself. Maybe Trumps wall is creating an ecological dystopia, but Bernie Sanders is a socialist. And look, here comes Michael Bloomberg to save the day.

Im not saying that change is simple or that a national and global course of action, in the face of war and climate crisis and the growing phenomenon of refugees trying to find a home, is in any way obvious. But our collective focus should be bigger than the needs and limits of corporate centrism. Do we not all have a stake in the future of this planet?

If you consume a lot of mainstream news coverage, you might be thinking that no one has quite the stake in the future that Bloomberg, the $60 billion man, does. He has bought his way into the election process.

In a staggering milestone in what critics have characterized as an effort to buy the Democratic nomination,Common Dreamsreports, billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg has already poured more than $350 million of his own personal wealth into television, digital, and radio advertising since launching his 2020 presidential campaign last November.

This is our country: up for sale. No matter that Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, pushedstop-and-friskpolicing when he was in office, inundating minority neighborhoods with police a.k.a., the occupying army and stopping everyone who looks suspicious for a humiliating pat-down and possible arrest. A federal judge eventually ruled the practice unconstitutional, calling it checkpoint-style policing. But Bloomberg has continued to quietly defendracism-based security, infamously maintaining, in a 2015 speech, that 95 percent of murderers are male, minorities, 16-25.

So what we have here is a political system that continually surrenders to us-vs.-them thinking: leadership that requires an enemy to keep the country united. This kind of thinking cuts cruel social gouges everywhere its in place, creating endless harm to some and insecurity for everyone.

American democracy continues to be up for sale, but only to bidders who support The Wall.

Original post:
The Wall: Separating Democracy From Voters - Common Dreams

The country is built on faith in the electoral process, but that's been severely dented in the 20 years since the 2000 Bush v. Gore debacle over Florida's hanging chads. Since then, we've added foreign interference to a mix that's long included voter suppression, gerrymandering and an antiquated Electoral College that routinely gives the person with fewer votes the White House.

Put together all these very real and different challenges to the American system and it's hard to fight the feeling that this experiment in democracy is teetering.

The end result is there is still no clear winner for the first 2020 primary contest.

The Iowa Democratic Party made things worse by hiding the issue behind its delayed results for hours on caucus night. Then, it released only a portion of results.

That opened the door for campaigns to sow doubt about the numbers.

Nobody, including Biden, is actually suggesting the results are so flawed that Joe Biden's current fourth place showing in Iowa is incorrect. But there are serious problems with the results.

"This is just one moment in time," said Maria Cardona, a Democratic strategist and CNN political commentator. "Democrats are going to fix it and move on from it and focus on the priority, which is beating Donald Trump."

Trump likes to question US democracy

The President built his political career calling American democracy into question.

When Trump criticized the electoral process for being "rigged" against him in 2016, he was rightly criticized. It felt at the time like he was building an excuse for when he lost. But he won the White House even though he got fewer votes than the other candidate.

Turned out the process wasn't rigged, but built in such a way that a divisive nationalist intentionally appealing to white voters could win with fewer votes than the other person.

And that's even without factoring in that Russians were trying to influence it by spreading fake information on social media and hacking the Democratic party.

Trump didn't stop with his "rigged" allegation, even after he won.

Meddling from the outside

And that was before Democrats impeached him for pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden while holding up needed security aid to the country and Republicans, deciding they were okay with that behavior, acquitted him in the Senate.

It's clear from testimony by the US intelligence community and others that Russia is still actively trying to influence the 2020 election with misinformation that spreads on social media. The question is how successful they will be.

Voter suppression and voter fraud

All of that, taken together, is a pretty clear pattern that could shake Americans' faith in the electoral process. It is the faith in that process, and the peaceful transfer of power, that is the ground upon which the entire American experiment in self government is built and Trump has been criticized for trying to undermine it.

Who can vote in red states vs. blue states

But he added that "both political parties look to create electoral processes that likely advantage their political fortunes."

Republicans, generally, favor more restrictive practices and Democrats favor making voting easier.

"Access to voting really depends on where you live and how competitive the parties are in your state," he said. "Differences among the states allow for legitimate concerns to be brought up over who is shut out or invited in when it comes to the electoral process."

Changing the process

Rather than seek the national spotlight as a Senate or presidential candidate, Abrams has turned making US elections more fair a call to action.

Her Twitter feed in the aftermath of the Iowa debacle is a documentation of how the Democratic primary process isn't actually that democratic and how the party is taking minority voters, in particular, for granted.

"Regardless of the tech issues, Iowa uses a caucus system that excludes people who cannot participate because of work or family obligations. The most democratic process invites all eligible voices, which is why early and mail-in voting and a full Election Day are essential," she tweeted.

She also called for the entire early primary system to be overhauled.

"The Iowa Caucus is a long and storied tradition, but traditions can and do change. As we build a more accessible election process, we should revisit how Democrats launch our primary season," she said, later adding, "Suppression exists when voices are intentionally silenced AND when no one is willing to admit or fix the problem. Voter suppression awaits millions of voters in November unless we organize against efforts to block and discourage voters."

Democrats wanted to make election reform their calling card in 2020.

Likewise, Trump's complaints about a rigged system are unlikely to be as effective. He is, after all, the President.

"In 2020, it will be clear that Trump can win re-election and those who wish to see him unseated will be far more likely to turn out to vote to do so," said Alexander, who added there will be an equal concern among some of his opponents that the system is actually rigged for him -- "whether they view it through Russian interference or voter suppression."

Follow this link:
Iowa's mess is a threat to democracy - CNN

As candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination brace themselves for a second verdict from voters in New Hampshire on February 11, audiences around the world are scratching their heads trying to understand whats going on. TV shows on U.S. politics are a preferred form of entertainment across the planet, yet this time, reality has surpassed fiction. After three years of a most unusual presidency that has kept both allies and rivals on their toes, the choice of an adversary to Donald Trump feels of epic proportion. But if the Iowa caucuses failed to bring clarity, what will?

As a frequent commentator of U.S. politics for a French audience, I am often on the receiving end of impossible questions: So, who is the next Obama?; Americans make a big fuss about diversity, but have you seen the candidates? Same old white men; Bernie Sanders is supposedly too progressive, but in France he would be a centrist, wouldnt he?; A woman cant get elected president. Remember Hillary Clinton?; I like the guy, Pete Buttig Butti Bu how do you pronounce his name again?; All of that is well and good, but let me tell you something: in the end, Trump will be reelected.

I wouldnt dare try to debunk all, or for that matter any, of this well-intentioned amateur punditry. But it reminds me that it is hard to get to the substance behind the noise of a primary horserace. In an effort to clarify matters for myself, and a few potential readers, I have tried to dissect the forces at play within the 2020 Democratic camp in my upcoming book, Des Dmocrates en Amrique: Lheure des choix face Trump (Fayard-Fondation Jean Jaurs, 2020). Its main takeaway can be diluted to a simple question: what do Democrats stand for? As I toured Iowa and New Hampshire ahead of the caucuses and primaries, I was reminded that the answer to this question is not obvious, but rather hidden behind a large field of contenders and a simplistic progressive-versus-moderate narrative. After a year of research on the topic, this is how I have come to think of it (and explain it to fellow foreigners):

The main driving force in these primaries is the idea that Democrats need, first and foremost, to beat Donald Trump (obviously!). For many, his 2016 election was an aberration. His victory was circumstantial, a result of Clintons campaign mistakes coupled with foreign interference, only enabled by the Electoral College. This historical mistake can be repaired, provided Americans sweep the Trump anomaly under the rug. The partys priority is electability: identifying the candidate most likely to win against Donald Trump, someone who can bring together generations across social, ethnic, and racial groups, who can attract the average voter, particularly in the few states narrowly lost by Hillary Clinton in 2016.

This is the argument made by former Vice President Joe Biden, a politician with a regular Joe persona who promises to restore the soul of America. Then, and only then, can things get back to normal. But, if any one lesson can be gleaned from Iowa, its that Democrats dont seem that interested in just returning to normal. Attending a Joe Biden event in Hudson, New Hampshire, this weekend, I was struck by the passivity of the audience, listening respectfully and in silence to a politician they generally like but refuse to commit to. As Iowa eroded hiselectability argument, Bidens only comeback plan resides in African-American support, which is massive indeed, at least up until now. Yet, as I witnessed folks leaving the room before the end of Bidens town hall, I couldnt help but think that there must be something else at play.

It appears that, for a growing part of the Democratic base, 2016 was no accident, but the symptom of a more serious illness: the desperation of working class and lower-middle class Americans who are looking to upset the established order. Indeed, the situation is dire: working wages dont cover the cumulative costs of healthcare, education, pensions, housing; the risk of personal financial ruin has doubled in 40 years; Americans are dyinglife expectancy has been decreasing for the past three years (with the exception of a slight uptick last year).

Leaving the caucus precinct in Waterloo, Iowa, a country club waitress was telling me of her financial difficultiesfaced with high costs of rent, food, and healthcare, only able to make ends meet by selling cannabis out of her car. Letting me in on a secret, she told me that her upcoming knee replacement surgery, which she needs to be able to continue working, led her to double her stash and look for new customers.

Stories like these are all too real. Hurt by globalization and international trade competition, struggling American workers flocked to Trump and can only be recaptured by addressing their legitimate grievances. At least thats the argument of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. They espouse an unapologetic shock therapy; they promise universal public healthcare, early childhood education, free college, and a dramatic increase of the minimum wage, offering to implement robust regulation of markets and taxation of the rich as the means of achieving these goals. As political rallies in Iowa and New Hampshire overflow with supporters, there is no question that their promises dominate the political conversation, although their dual existence threatens each others own prospects. But the wounds of 2016 remain raw. The implicit accusation behind their programsthat Democrats have cozied up to Corporate America and forgotten regular Americansis quite upsetting to the establishment wing of the party, and the two progressive senators dont have that many friends on the inside. In the age of Trump, Democrats worry deeply about infighting.

Many believe that this brand of fiery leftist populism will exacerbate the main problem at the heart of America today: the hyper-polarization and hyper-partisanship that is ripping the country apart geographically, culturally, and politically. For a new crowd of modern Democrats, a personality as divisive as Donald Trump could only thrive because American democracy itself is in crisis. An outdated constitutional order, fragmented politics, and a divisive media ecosystem have produced a broken system where institutions are not representative, and people feel alienated.

There is a crisis of belonging in America, says former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, who promises to reconcile the country. To him, American values and symbolsreligion, the Constitution, the armed forcesshould unite Americans rather than divide them. He wants to move past the left-right divide and re-center the political conversationvery Obama-esque of him, say many, but also very Macron-esque, as the French president made the rejection of the class left-right divide a signature of his politics. Blurring political lines allows for blurring of camps and diversifying support. At a Buttigieg rally in Nashua, New Hampshire, this weekend, I met an older voter who had driven down from Maine to canvass for Pete, enthused by his fresh energy and his message of hope and optimism. I also encountered a former Tony Blair adviser with a Northern Ireland Labour politician, both intrigued, like many Europeans, by this American version of the Third Way, hoping it could lead to a larger renewal of progressive politics. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar also plays on the strength of the Midwestern brand of no-nonsense and unity. But the most progressive politicians go a step further: they call for modernizing institutions and amending the Constitution to prevent partisan games from artificially dividing Americans. Buttigieg, and others, have put forward ambitious ideas for getting rid of the Electoral College, controlling gerrymandering, or reforming the Supreme Court. Americans, tired of D.C. hysteria, want to believe in unity and renewal, and who best than a 30-something gay mayor from Mike Pences home state of Indiana to personify belonging? Well, that is if he wins.

Because one of the wild cards in this primary race in my opinion resides in a fourth corner of the electorate, where most of the energy within the Democratic base stems, but that has no obvious embodiment among the candidates. It is the rise of a generation of young activists, diverse and progressive, who are fundamentally questioning the order of things in American society, where gender, ethnic, racial, sexual and religious minorities are structurally underrepresented. Yet, the Democratic Party absolutely needs them in November, at least as much as it needs the independents and the moderates. They marched in the streets in 2017, they knocked off establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle in 2018, they agitated the House in 2019. But this post-Trump generation of activists wont just fall in line. They push for gun-control legislation, they demand climate action, they push for new progressive ideas such as reparations for Black America or de-criminalizing the border. None of the current hopefuls are their ideal candidate, although Bernie comes close to it. Rewarded for his relentless advocacy for the poor and disenfranchised, Bernie got the endorsement of three members of the Squad and the Sunrise Movement. Warren follows suit, endorsed by the Working Families party and former candidate and progressive hero Julin Castro. Centrist politicians, including self-funding former New York city mayor Mike Bloomberg, who joins the primary ballot on Super Tuesday, brush aside their theory of the case as marginal and alienating. But the young and diverse crowd of precinct captains and canvass organizers I met in Iowa and New Hampshire reminds me that the fire in many Democrats bellies comes from this hope of the rise a new American majority, collective, intersectional, and radically inclusive.

No single one of these undercurrents corresponds to a single candidate, just as no candidate embodies a single undercurrent. Yet each is a powerful force within the Democratic Party that responds to deep-seated concerns about Americas evolution. Many worry deeply about increasing socioeconomic inequalities and want to rein in the capitalist system. Many are shocked by the enduring legacy of structural racism and underrepresentation and want it to be addressed head on. Many still anguish over deepening divisions and want to reconcile Americans. Some simply hope to return to a more normal America. But every single Democrat is concerned with Donald Trumps abuse of power and determined to take back the White House. In fact, most Democrats worry about all of those things, and yet no candidate has so far been able to capture them all. Which brings us to the present day: the beginning of a primary process which could take months (or end within weeks), while personalities fight it out. Yet to achieve the perfect union that will lead to a new American majority, the next Democratic candidate will have to accept that his or her coalition will only stand if it is deeply rooted in the four corners of the Democratic camp.

Go here to read the rest:
Democracy in America 2020: A French perspective on the battle for the Democratic nomination - Brookings Institution

Global dissatisfaction with democracy has increased over the past 25 years, according to our recent report.

Drawing upon the HUMAN Surveys project, the report covered 154 countries, with 77 countries covered continuously for the period from 1995 to 2020. These samples were possible thanks to the combination of data from over 25 sources, 3,500 national surveys, and 4 million respondents.

Not surprisingly, the gloomy headline finding rising democratic dissatisfaction attracted the most attention. Less widely discussed, however, is the good news that a small sample of countries has bucked the trend, and have record high levels of satisfaction with their democracies.

Islands of contentment

Why are such countries the Netherlands, Denmark, or Switzerland able to achieve high and rising levels of democratic contentment?

There are four factors that stand out in explaining why some democracies have or have not experienced an eroding democratic satisfaction. These can be summarised by four Ps: polarisation, paralysis, perfidy (or scandal), and powerlessness.

First, countries with increasing polarisation show rising dissatisfaction. This is especially the case in majoritarian electoral systems that generate winners and losers, leaving close to half of the electorate dissatisfied following every election.

United States

Recent research shows that the US has had the largest increase in polarisation since the 1990s, and it is also among the countries with the largest increase in democratic dissatisfaction. Other majoritarian democracies, such as Canada and the UK, have suffered the same trend, though, on a more limited scale.

The countries such as Denmark or Switzerland, which we call the islands of contentment, on the other hand, have limited polarisation and use proportional representation. The political structures of these nations drive them towards more cooperative forms of politics, and they are often less complicated to govern.

Citizens abhor a political vacuum. Perhaps one of the clearest examples is the UK during the Brexit paralysis of 2019, in which the British cabinet and parliament were logjammed over whether to pass the EU withdrawal agreement, hold a second referendum, or call an election.

United Kingdom

The UK is not the only example: government shutdowns in the US under Bill Clinton in 1995-6, Barack Obama in 2013, and Donald Trump in 2018-9 did not increase public satisfaction. And in Australia, the revolving door of prime ministers between 2013 and 2018 has left many voters dissatisfied.

On the other hand, in countries where there is relative continuity in government, such crises are avoided. In Switzerland, the so-called magic formula coalition at the federal level almost prevents such crises by design and satisfaction has been rising.

Perfidy or, corruption and scandal is one of the strongest predictors of dissatisfaction with democracy. These can be short-lived, as with the UK parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009, which saw dissatisfaction temporarily spike, or rather longer in duration, such as the tangentpoli investigations in 1990s Italy which led to the collapse of the entire party system.

Inevitably, more extreme examples can be found in many emerging democracies. In Brazil, democratic dissatisfaction has soared since the start of the Lava Jato investigations in 2014. And in South Africa, a string of corruption revelations during the presidency of Jacob Zuma sent democratic dissatisfaction soaring to record highs.

South Africa

Denmark, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg on the other hand are the first, fourth, eighth, and ninth least corrupt countries in the world, respectively, according to Transparency International.

Finally, citizens must feel that they have agency over the political process.

A clear example of powerlessness is where there is low electoral integrity. Elections are one of the most visible aspects of democracy, and unfair electoral practices decrease public satisfaction.

The unlimited money pouring into US elections since 2010, its demonstrably gerrymandered electoral districts, active voter suppression, and controversies in vote counting have left many disillusioned with the electoral process. Canada is better off, but the circumvention of election finance rules by Conservatives in the 2006 election campaign and Robocall scandal in the 2011 Canadian federal elections did not enhance public satisfaction.

By comparison, the Electoral Integrity Project run by Harvard and Sydney universities, gives Denmark, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg some of the best scores in the world.

Feelings of political agency require a sense of influence over domestic institutions, but also a sense that those institutions are in themselves sovereign. A number of the most satisfied nations in our study are either on the outskirts of the EU (Norway and Switzerland), or not in the eurozone (Denmark), projects that require substantial pooling of sovereignty in order to function.

Meanwhile, countries in southern Europe such as Greece, caught in the eurozone crisis, have experienced a profound breakdown in democratic satisfaction in recent years.

Bolstering satisfaction in democracy will require addressing multiple issues. But acknowledging that democratic discontent has deeper roots is a necessary starting point.

View original post here:
Where people are satisfied with democracy and why - The Conversation UK