This article will analyze in depth what paves the way for the dismantling of democracies from within. It is essential to note that “democratic erosion” will be one of the leading keywords throughout our investigation. Therefore, it is fundamental to understand democratic erosion as best as we can and how it comes to be. This topic is important to discuss as since 2010, the number of countries turning into autocracies has been higher than that of those living in a democracy (see graphic below). In hard numbers, this means that about 72% of citizens live in autocracies, as per a study by V-Dem released in 2022. Democracies, while not perfect, are known to produce more equitable living standards and access to resources for everyone. Democracies, while not perfect, are known to produce more equitable living standards and access to resources for everyone.

An official definition for “democratic erosion” has not been agreed upon, but in more general terms, it refers to the gradual weakening or dismantling of democratic institutions and norms. Democratic erosion cannot be mistaken as a reformation process; reforming a democracy is anchored in bringing gradual change to an existing system and improving it based on former learnings. Democratic erosion involves incremental changes that erode the substance of democracy. The applied process undermines judicial independence, manipulates electoral systems, and curtails civil liberties and rights.

It is important to understand that democratic erosion is NOT a natural process of a system declining organically. Instead, it is a result of deliberate actions by political or other influential actors. It requires intentionally allocated resources and efforts to undermine democratic norms and institutions. Often, economic inequality, corruption, and societal polarization are ‘fantastic’ facilitators. While the process may appear gradual and incremental, it is usually driven by specific political strategies aimed at consolidating power and reducing checks on authority.

Another essential concept in the same context, often used interchangeably with democratic erosion, is “democratic backsliding.” The first refers to the weakening or degradation of democratic institutions and norms. In contrast, the second refers to the state-led debilitation or elimination of political institutions that sustain existing democracies. Backsliding involves deliberate actions by leaders and other voices in power where a broad platform can be addressed to amass influence and strategically manipulate the existing systems' pillars of belief.

Both concepts describe a decline of democratic quality but focus on slightly different aspects of the process. Democratic erosion can be seen as a broader phenomenon encompassing various factors leading to democratic decline, while democratic backsliding highlights the specific role of state actions in this process. They are complementary rather than sequential, as both can coincide and reinforce each other.

Both concepts mentioned above can be seen in very direct manifestations in the environments in which they occur. Again, it is vital to acknowledge that undermining a democracy requires long-term planning, while the execution is an incremental process. Nancy Bermeo highlights some of the following steps in her 2016 essay “On Democratic Backsliding” and helps us understand what paves the way to dismantle a democracy from within:

• The intentional growth of societal polarization and political discontent

• The degradation and collusion for free and fair elections, including voter manipulation and suppression tactics

• The active repression of opposition parties through arrests or limited freedoms

• The weakening of the “rule of law” (e.g., judicial and bureaucratic restraints on the government)

• The (selective) repression and institutionalization of the media and press

• The exaggerated emphasis on national security (e.g., establishing the over-exaggerated idea of foreign threads)

• The decline of liberal rights of freedom of speech, including the right to assemble

• The suspension or alteration of constitutional rules to consolidate power, including the deployment of amendments that increase executive power and relax the term limits of an executive tenure

• External realignment or interference that supports authoritarian tendencies

While democratic erosion can be observed, it is hard to identify the exact point in time when a democratically elected government becomes authoritarian. American political scientists and professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt investigated those “barely visible steps.”

Both of them concluded that the undermining of democracies happens at the hands of democratically elected leaders. Levitsky and Ziblatt pointed out four main indicators of democratic backsliding:

1. Rejection of (or weak commitment to) democratic rules

2. Denial of the legitimacy of political opponents

3. Toleration or encouragement of violence

4. Readiness to curtail civil liberties, including those of the media

As discussed in my previous article, “Democracy in Numbers,” the V-Dem index and similar tools can help us get an idea of the quantitative facts but we need additional help for the qualitative ones. The above four indicators provide us with behaviors that can be monitored over the course of time and bring more viable facts to the table. So does the Democratic Erosion Consortium which published a report in June 2024 to take a closer look specifically at how that type of data could be approached and found three key approaches:

• Subjective Indicators
  These rely on expert assessments, such as those used by V-Dem and Freedom House. They cover a broad range of democratic aspects but are potentially biased due to individual judgments.

• Objective Indicators
  These are verifiable measures like electoral results or the number of journalists jailed. They are less biased but might miss key aspects of erosion that are hard to quantify.

• Event-Based Measures
  The Democratic Erosion Consortium's dataset tracks specific events related to democratic backsliding and resilience, offering nuanced insights into the process.

The most interesting one of the above from a citizen perspective is the Event-Based Measure from the DEC’s DEED (Democratic Erosion Event Dataset). It tracks events that are related to democratic erosion and sections them into four categories: events that precede democratic erosion (precursors), events that constitute erosion itself (symptoms), events that counteract democratic erosion (resistance), and lastly, events that undermine existing democracies (destabilizing event) and lead to more authoritarian regimes.

I believe this to be one of the most convincing approaches as it is something we as citizens can experience and potentially find more relatable than the collection of abstract streams of data.

The most important question, though, still remains: How did we even get here? What enables an individual or a few in power to amass so much influence and power that they can convince the many to trust them without facts and empty narratives to choose authoritarianism over a democracy?

The answer may be easier than we think because if a system that is supposed to care for the many neglects them, the many will rebel against it. Let’s take a closer look at the Achilles’ Heel of most democracies.

As mentioned in my article “Democracy from the Perspective of AI”, political apathy and financial inequality are “close friends.” Unsurprisingly, economic frustration and inequality play a significant role in democratic erosion as well. Economic dissatisfaction within a democracy can turn the citizens against the existing system as they believe in finding relief in any system other than the one that has been letting them down for years or even decades. The Pew Research Center found that in countries where the economy is perceived as poor, dissatisfaction with democracy is higher.

Another Achilles’ Heel of democracy that leads to democratic erosion is corruption and the lack of trust in institutions. South Americans have the lowest confidence in institutions worldwide. According to the Corruption Perception Index (CPI), countries like Peru have a score of  31/100 (2024), which signals a fundamental distrust in institutions and, ultimately, in the democracies they represent. Often, citizens in these countries feel that politicians are out of touch with the populous, and frequent corruption scandals confirm this theory.

The last major Achilles’ Heel of democracy is social media and its abuse. While the world of socials has provided us with global personal connections and tailored entertainment, it has also been abused to spread misinformation and manipulate citizens. The deceptive use of social media pushed polarization and manipulated public opinion, weakening democratic processes. The most known example in this context is the Cambridge Analytica Scandal. The company offered a service called “microtargeting” to its clients using user-specific Facebook data to better target political messages to people who had the potential to be influenced. After the scandal was published, Facebook revoked API access in 2024 and entirely shut down access in 2015. The Integrity Institute, among others, has made it their mission to conduct investigative research on the amplification of misinformation and keep citizens informed.

The above three blocks represent the fundamental problems in our societies that have not been addressed efficiently by ruling democracies. Democracy, at its core, is there to serve and listen. If that fundamental task is failed, democratic erosion paves the way for authoritarianism.

While I would like to say yes, there is a point of no return in any process. When it comes to democratic erosion and the identification of that point of no return, we may use Venezuela as an example. Venezuela’s economic crisis and fast-growing economic frustrations due to the oil price dropping accelerated democratic erosion in that once beautiful country. The Democratic Erosion Consortium highlighted that the “creation of the Constituent National Assembly in 2017” was the event that eventually led to a point that can be seen as a no-return moment. The organization was meant to replace the old constitution with a new one but consisted mainly of Maduro’s loyalists, who mandated the “leader” himself to offer final approval.

While the Achilles’ Heel of democracy can be addressed and solutions can be found, the truth is we can only discover them together. This story doesn’t end with one hero; it ends with many heroes standing up for what is right and protecting each other. We need to raise up and build trust in each other, find solutions to invent economic systems that support the many over the few, raise awareness as independent individuals and inform each other using the same tools that have been used against us, and build institutions that are supported by technologies that provide ultimate transparency and accountability to citizens. Addressing the Achilles’ Heel of democracy actively and collectively will create more resilient models of democracy and develop informed and accountable citizens.

Written by @stellaachenbach

I would like to thank Daniele Nanni for his valuable feedback and suggestions, which significantly improved the final version of this article.

I was between calls and started scribbling in my notebook. There has been a lot on my mind beyond work these days, mostly connected to the articles I publish here and the currently rather dire state of our democracies. I got up to get lunch after the call had ended, and once I returned to my workplace, there was a first sketch of ‘The Crowned Citizen.’

After the title popped into my head, I immediately questioned if it already held a meaning, so I investigated and found out that the term had been used in different contexts before:

1. King Louis Philippe I of France was described as the ‘Crowned Citizen’ or ‘Citizen King’ during his short reign (1830 to 1848). He was seen as the embodiment of "the best possible republic" and played a significant role in shaping French society.

2. American judge and orator Samuel Furman Hunt was described with the same term because he "filled the whole measure of good citizenship." This usage highlights exemplary civic virtue and contributions to society.

3. In modern gaming contexts, "The Crowned Citizen" is a title or goal within certain games. Players compete to earn this honor, representing their tribe or people in the process.

Generally, we can conclude that ‘The Crowned Citizen’ represents an individual who embodies the highest ideals of citizenship for exceptional civic engagement.

But what happens if the current governance system doesn’t fulfill its duties anymore towards us, the citizens? We have fulfilled our responsibilities of living in a democracy by engaging in governance, being productive, and paying taxes. Yet, we are being ignored, ostracized, and even erased from the system.

The Crowned Citizen is no longer pleased; their face is in absolute disarray. From a state of frustration to fear and disgust, almost anything has taken place by now in the face of how their democracy has regressed.

My painted version of ‘The Crowned Citizen’ is about that current state. It represents a confused, disappointed, and embarrassed state of disbelief at what is happening in the world. I know many of us are still in denial or think that the ‘me exception’ is still valid, but deep in your soul, you know it is not. If you feel the way I do, I ask you to get yourself a free graphic of ‘The Crowned Citizen’ here and put it up on your public profiles as a symbol of silent protest against all that is currently happening. Hammer it on your Facebook profile, plaster it on Instagram and Twitter and demonstrate with me and many other Crowned Citizens!

It’s free, of course, and you can claim it with your email as well if absolutely necessary. The NFT is available on Optimism, Arbitrum, Base, and Polygon. Have fun plastering the internet! Needless to say the graphic is CC0.

https://app.unlock-protocol.com/event/the-crowned-citizen-1

https://app.unlock-protocol.com/event/the-crowned-citizen

https://app.unlock-protocol.com/event/the-crowned-citizen-2

https://app.unlock-protocol.com/event/the-crowned-citizen-3

Democracy in Numbers

A chapter in Rutger Bregman’s “Utopien für Realisten” (Utopias for Realists) inspired me to dig deeper into all the statistics and numbers surrounding democracy. Since the 1900s, we have lived in a world that adores numbers almost over everything else. The specific measurement Bregman elaborates on is the GDP in the chapter “Der Maßstab schlechthin” (The Ultimate benchmark). The GDP aims to be a singular metric to define economic success; I started wondering how this idea translates to the success of a democracy and how that is currently being measured. But first, let’s take a closer look at the GDP and where my inspiration came from for this article:

“Tatsächlich gibt es im Krieg keine annähernd so nützliche Kennzahl wie das BIP.”

(Translation: “In fact, during war, there is no indicator nearly as useful as the GDP.”)

Russian-born American economist Simon Kuznets invented the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the 1930s. Kuznets’ work on this single metric system to capture all economic production by individuals, companies, and the government began in response to the Great Depression. The Great Depression was caused by a multitude of events, such as the Stock Market Crash in 1929, following bank runs, the general decline in consumer spending, the breakdown of international trades, wealth inequality, overproduction, policy mistakes, and, of course, the slow response by governments to all of it.  Context matters!

The GDP was meant as a tool that policymakers could use to navigate the economic crisis and didn’t factor in society's many other needs. To be more frank, the GDP originated at a time when survival meant everything. It was not designed to let a society thrive but survive!

While the standard for calculating the GDP has been updated several times, it is essential to take note that the first guideline for drafting the GDP contained about 50 pages, and the last manual authored by the BEA contained over 400 pages. This means there are only a few people, including economists, who genuinely understand how the numbers behind the GDP are calculated. Therefore, a clear level of transparency and accessibility are missing. These days, the GDP has become the singular most defining value of a country, yet even Kuznet warned against using the GDP in that context. He was aware of the limitations of the system he had built, as it lacked one of the most defining factors of any society: Its well-being. Bregman expresses it as follows:

“Das BIP ist kein klar definiertes Faktum, [..]. Wer das BIP misst, versucht eine Idee zu messen. [..] Es ist unbestreitbar, dass das BIP in Kriegszeiten sehr nützlich war, [...]. Im Krieg ist es sinnvoll die Umwelt zu verschmutzen und sich zu verschulden. es kann sogar richtig sein, die Familie zu vernachlässigen, die Kinder zur Arbeit in eine Fabrik zu schicken, die Freizeit zu opfern und alles zu vergessen, was das Leben eigentlich lebenswert macht.”

(Translation: “The GDP is not a clearly defined fact, [...]. Whoever measures GDP is attempting to measure an idea. [...] It is undeniable that GDP was very useful during wartime, [...]. In war, it makes sense to pollute the environment and go into debt. It can even be right to neglect the family, send children to work in a factory, sacrifice leisure time, and forget everything that actually makes life worth living.”)

This very chapter led to my investigation into the numbers and statistics surrounding democracy. If our most used economic tool exists in the wrong context yet is a priority for policymakers and alike, what about the statistics that help us inform us of our success in driving our democracies? Suppose the GDP doesn’t factor in many essential numbers to truly capture society's success on other levels than just the economic one. What is amiss when it comes to our democratic values?

So, I embarked on a journey to bring you democracy in numbers. But before we start, I want you to know why you should even care.

Knowledge is power, and an informed and involved citizen can take influence on how a system works, as systems of any kind are a work of design. If we ever want to reach the level of ‘true democracy,’ we must be in the known. We need to be! True democracy leads to more resources for all of us and a better quality of life. Understanding which systems exist to measure us and our engagement in governance enables us to recognize systemic flaws and disillusions us from ‘hypernormalization.’

Similar to everything else in our world, we have also pursued to measure our democracies. These statistics are called ‘democracy indices.’ While democracy, by its original definition, refers to a system of governance “ruled by the people,” there have been several systems to do this, yet not all of these forms do it the same way; hence, democracy doesn’t just equal democracy. According to the ‘List of Forms of Government,’ we are dealing with twelve overall and actively used forms of democracy in our world today. Interestingly, most forms of democracy seem to be representative democracies, where officials are elected to represent and execute the people's will and rule in their stead. Let’s keep the former fact in mind when looking at the democracy indices.

Several attempts exist to measure democracy with the support of ‘Democracy Indices,’ developed by various organizations. They all have in common to inform policy decisions based on quantitative and comparative research. While these indices claim transparency in their research and statistical output, transparency is primarily also connected to the accessibility of data. Accessibility here can refer to two things: firstly, the literal access to the raw data collected, and secondly, the level of understanding required to form certain conclusions over others concerning that raw data.

“An uninformed majority will always lose against an informed minority”

is a quote that comes to my mind immediately from the game Werewolf. This social game was created by Dimitry Davidoff at Moscow State University in 1986 and has sadly been proven to be very true in every possible instance.

Before we go into more detail, and without adding too much complexity, here are the three most commonly mentioned indices and their parameters of measurement on a high-level scale:

• The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)
  The index, invented by a research and analysis division of the Economist Group in 2006, measures the state of democracy in 167 countries based on just five categories: Electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties.

• Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Indices
  The V-Dem project, initiated by political scientists, produces a set of democracy indices based on a multidimensional conceptualization of democracy. V-Dem distinguishes again between five high-level principles of democracy: Electoral, Liberal, Participatory, Deliberative, and Egalitarian. This index has managed to capture the more nuanced and faceted nature of democracy.

• Global State of Democracy Indices (GSoD)
  The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) developed these indices. They aun ti measure democratic trends at the country, regional, and global levels across 29 aspects of democracy for 174 countries. The GSoD Indices are based on 165 individual indicators from various sources, including expert surveys, observational data, and composite measures. The conceptual framework of the GSoD Indices is built on two fundamental democratic principles:
  1- Popular control over public decision-making and decision-makers 2- Equality of respect and voice between citizens in the exercise of that control

All three of the indices mentioned above are widely adopted and enjoy popularity for good reasons: The V-Dem seems to offer the most detailed and granular data with about 500 indicators and a factored reach of over 200 countries, the EIU appears to be more centered around public opinion surveys and the GOsD is more nuanced with its approach in how to categorize between different systems of governance. While they all have their pros and cons, let’s get deeper into what I have promised in the title of this article: The numbers!

The EIU’s most interesting parameters are that it factors in a value declared as ‘Political Culture’ and clearly separates between ‘full democracies’ and ‘flawed democracies.’ According to the EIU, 24 countries worldwide enjoy living in full democratic systems, while 50 are subjected to flawed ones, 34 are classified as hybrid regimes, and 59 are authoritarian regimes. To go into more detail, only 7.8% of the world population currently lives in a system that is defined, according to the EIU, as a full democracy.

The V-Dem is a stack of different democracy indices combined and finally results in an official ranking. Within that ranking, Denmark enjoys first place with high stats in all six components (mentioned above). The highest scores were given in ‘Liberal’ (0.977)  and ‘Egalitarian’ (0.972). Liberal here stands for an index that factors in the rule of law, checks and balances, and civil liberties. In contrast, ‘Egalitarian’ in this context stands for equal access to resources, power, and freedoms across society as a whole. As a reference, Germany is in place 15th, and the United States is in the 20th. The lowest values for the US have been given in ‘Egalitarian’ (0.651) and ‘Participatory’ (0.657). We already know that the first value stands for equal access to resources and, therefore, a general problem of inequality. The second value measures the degree to which citizens participate in their own democracy, which brings us back to a former article of mine that mentions ‘political apathy’ and its inherent meaning.

Lastly, let’s take a closer look at the numbers of the GOsD by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). The IDEA is an intergovernmental organization that aims to support the sustainable development of democracy worldwide. The organization is based out of Stockholm, Sweden. Since 2024, 35 more member states have joined to contribute to the GOsD. The approach here is very different. Instead of sharing fixed results and their outcomes, IDEA makes the data more accessible by providing citizens with data that can be compared. In the output below, I compare Denmark with the United States (according to the comparison made with the V-Dem data). I used two parameters, Participation and Representation, to output their values. As we can observe, Participation, even in countries such as Denmark, shows a small decline from 1975 with 0.99 participation and 2023 a value of 0.96. More dramatic though is the development of the Representation value for the United States from 1975, being at 0.69 (overall not high), a consistent growth of this value to 0.8 in 2014 and a deep dip to 0.66 in 2019.

It is very important to take note of the timeline and approaches all of these different indices take into account. The biggest final question is, now that we belong to a more informed minority, what can we do with this added knowledge?

The first lesson learned should be that these indices do something very similar to what I did in this article with you: Being informative while selective.

You might feel you are now part of an informed minority when, in fact, I fed you the numbers only of what I wanted you to see. I wanted you to see that the US is defined as a ‘flawed democracy’ and doesn’t even compare to countries such as Denmark. I wanted you to know that representation doesn’t translate to a country having a political culture. Most importantly, I wanted you to understand that free access to resources is imperative to live in a more complete or ‘full democracy.’ In both of the aforementioned values, the US falls short. Numbers can be bent in the direction we need them to bend in by being highly selective while claiming to cite a balanced system. The indices are not inaccurate in themselves when viewed collectively, but they turn into the narrative of an individual when being shown selectively, which is more than often the case.

In the end, I wrote this article to inform and ask you to question if a metric or index can genuinely reflect the reality we citizens live in. Are they a tool for democracies to thrive upon, or are they designed to make us believe that our system is already the most complete version of democracy? Personally, I think that the ultimate form of democracy is what I call ‘true democracy,’ as mentioned above. Democracies, in general, are still a rare good in the world, even when flawed. They are worth fighting for, but I believe it is time to reach the next level of how democracy is being executed. True democracy might be the answer to this, where a symbiosis is reached between ‘liquid’ and ‘digital democracies’, and political theatrics belong in the trash bin. We have failed to adopt a form of democratic governance that can adapt to how the world works today and how people live in it. We can do better by envisioning true democracy together.

Written by @stellaachenbach

I would like to thank Daniele Nanni for his valuable feedback and suggestions, which significantly improved the final version of this article.

• R. Bregman, ‘Utopien für Realisten’, p. 116

• Wikipedia Contributors, ‘Simon Kuznets’, Wikipedia (2025) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Kuznets accessed 27 January 2025

• Wikipedia Contributors, ‘Great Depression’, Wikipedia (2025) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression accessed 27 January 2025

• Bureau of Economic Analysis, ‘NIPA Handbook’, BEA (December 2024)https://www.bea.gov/resources/methodologies/nipa-handbook/pdf/all-chapters.pdf accessed 27 January 2025

• True democracy is true to the original definition of democracy that aims for the ‘rule of the people.’ This format of democracy avoids a representative democracy and aims for a direct one by informed citizens. It deploys assisting technologies that guarantee transparency over processes in a decentralized and secure format. True democracy doesn’t need politics to succeed in performing democratic governance. (Definition by Stella Achenbach, 2023)

• flybrand1976, ‘Definitions: Hypernormalization & Hypernormal’, https://fredlybrand.com/ (2023) https://fredlybrand.com/2023/02/16/definitions-hypernormalization-hypernormal/ accessed 27 January 2025

• Wikipedia Contributors, ‘List of Forms of Government’, Wikipedia (2025) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government accessed 27 January 2025

• Wikipedia Contributors, ‘Democracy indices’, Wikipedia (2025) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_indices accessed 27 January 2025

• Wikipedia Contributors, ‘Mafia (party game)’, Wikipedia (2025) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_(party_game) accessed 27 January 2025

• Wikipedia Contributors, ‘The Economist Democracy Index’, Wikipedia (2025) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index accessed 27 January 2025

• Wikipedia Contributors, ‘V-Dem Democracy Indices’, Wikipedia (2025) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-Dem_Democracy_Indices accessed 27 January 2025

• Wikipedia Contributors, ‘International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance’, Wikipedia (2025) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_for_Democracy_and_Electoral_Assistance accessed 27 January 2025

• IDEA, ‘Global State of Democracy Indices’,  IDEA (2025) https://www.idea.int/democracytracker/gsod-indices?country=Denmark%2CUnited+States&index=Participation%2CRepresentation&years=1975-2023 accessed 27 January 2025

Introduction

When we talk about democracy, are we consistently talking about the same concept? How does the majority of us view democracy, and how does the data we produce (e.g., social media, news pages, YouTube, blogs, etc.) influence how artificial intelligence interprets the concept again?

Definition Whenever I research a distinct topic, I typically start by understanding very clearly how the term that my research involves is being defined. My first resort is asking Google for the official definition, which is usually retrieved from Oxford Languages. Here is the commonly understood definition of democracy:

(1) a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

“capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world”

(2) control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.

“the intended extension of industrial democracy”

Out of curiosity more than anything else, I consulted two generative AIs about their visual interpretation of democracy. I didn’t provide any further descriptions other than a prompt to visualize democracy. This is everything my original prompt (the text-based descriptive command) consisted of:

democracy

Midjourney was the first AI I consulted. Midjourney is a generative artificial intelligence program that lets users generate images from natural language descriptions.

The second AI I consulted was ChatGPT. ChatGPT is a chatbot developed by OpenAI. Since DALL·E 3, a text-to-image model, was natively integrated into ChatGPT, it lets users generate images in a similar manner to Midjourney.

Since Midjourney is a generative AI specialized in image generation, I received a very immediate result:

According to Midjourney founder David Holz, the open dataset for Midjourney was built by “a big scrape of the Internet” and, therefore, billions of images and their captions. This means, in return, that we can assume that the result for our prompt is representative to a certain degree of everything available on the internet.

In the case of ChatGPT and DALL·E 3, I entered the same prompt, which resulted in a feedback session as follows:

“To create images symbolizing democracy, I would need a bit more context or specific elements you'd like to include that represent democracy to you. Democracy can be represented in many ways, such as people voting, discussions and debates, democratic symbols like a parliament building or a voting box, or more abstract representations of democratic principles. Could you please provide more details on the specific aspects of democracy you would like to be visualized?”

I clearly stated in my response that I am not looking for my version of democracy but rather would like to understand how DALL·E 3 sees the most prominent/ popular version of democracy:

Let both image groups sink in for a few minutes and evaluate by yourself what these interpretations really show. Do they visually align with what you think of when visualizing democracy in your mind? Do these images align with our former definition of democracy according to Oxford Languages? If not, what stands out and why? If yes, question what are your expectations toward democracy!

Design, more than political science or system design, is a great tool/ point of view to dissect problems such as this one. Within the discipline of design, we have one principle that stretches over every type of design output: “Visual Hierarchy.” It translates to how the focus of the consumer/ viewer is being guided by the hierarchy placed within a design. The following example is a good comparison:

The graphic above is easy to decipher since it not only guides visually but also in a text format. If you were to apply the same principle to the generated imagery, the focus would never lie on the group of people who are supposed to define democracy (“whole population”, “by the majority”) but rather on either one central figure or a very small group of people who apparently are at the visual center of democracy.

Research suggests that “anti-politics” (*2) is on the rise since 2008. Anti-politics describes a movement that voices political discontent, mistrust, and cynicism. In the age of social media, the expressed discontent is often published to a wider audience and ends up taking influence on a larger scale, where rumors turn into conspiracies and unproven ideas are circulated as facts. All of this is dangerous and influences how political participation is executed. (3)

The real question, though, is why this is happening. According to the authors of “Need for Chaos” (3), the reason lies primarily in the “rising levels of income inequality and stagnation in real wages” in democracies. This means the political sphere and the economic sphere in democracies are tightly interwoven with each other.

The interesting detail is that it can seem that the feeling of political frustration is present in all groups of political participation when, in fact, and according to many studies (4), the discontent is stronger among citizens who belong to lower social groups within societies. An article by Luigi Droste shares further insight into where higher levels of public corruption and increasing levels of income inequality are the main drivers for such behavior. The reason it looks to us like the discontent might be so omnipresent is that this concerns the majority of people on this planet, as most people live in unfavorable conditions and experience income inequality on a daily basis. This is supported by the World Inequality Report (5) which states that the poorest 50% of the population own just 2%, the middle 40% own 22%, while the richest 10% own 76% of total net wealth. This is inequality based on facts and numbers and should make us aware of how dangerous inequality can become if not addressed.

Equally harmful to anti-politics can be “political apathy” (6), where political frustration can go so far that people disassociate with their own government and/ or their individual relevance within it. As described in Anna Zhelnina’s article, the so-called “apathy syndrome — a combination of emotional mechanisms and cultural norms that produce political apathy.” The syndrome evolves in different stages and eventually.

Both forms of political participation are dangerous to the original idea(l) of democracy and should see more attention.

Going back to the AI-generated imagery, the reasoning behind the results I received becomes more obvious: Democracy has strayed from its original path and definition where neither the “majority” nor the “whole population” can really influence the future of our societies nor how democracy is performed.

Most citizens within democracies have limited actions at their disposal to become “active” political participants by voting, staying informed, engaging in direct dialogue with their local government, engage with local communities that advocate for something specific and similar.

All of these options require not only a lot of dedication but also a solid foundation of education and time. Marginalized groups who are mostly affected by anti-politics or political apathy can’t afford most of the above due to time constraints and sometimes also educational restrictions. This means that the system of how we perform democracy is not built for the majority of people who are supposed to be active in it!

While facing this truth is somewhat frightening and agonizing, it should motivate us to look for solutions and build systems of democracy where the common citizen can actively participate. A secret to unlocking that part of a system is by using methodologies we know well from game design. Many very popular games emulate existing societies. Yet, for many, those games are more engaging than real-life scenarios. Josh A. Learner asks in his book “Making Democracy Fun” if a democracy should be fun. (7) Yes, it definitely should be, and it could be!

This also brings up my last point of this conclusion: Politics isn’t what we should focus on. Politics is an artificial system that enables a few to make decisions for the many. Instead, let’s unlock the next level of democracy together by engaging in research on decentralized governance, and we will be heading in a future-forward direction!

In collaboration with Neo-Cybernetics, I will be publishing more on the fundamentals of decentralized governance, and I hope you guys will stick around to read and share your feedback with me!

Check out Stella on her Social Media Channels here.

References:

• (1), Benmbarek, I. (2022) What is visual hierarchy in design? (explained with examples), RSS. Available at: https://www.creator-fuel.com/blog/what-is-visual-hierarchy-in-design-explained-with-examples (Accessed: 26 February 2024).

• (2), Hochuli, A., Hoare, G. and Cunliffe, P. (2021) The end of the end of history: Politics in the twenty-first century. Winchester: Zero Books.

• (3), PETERSEN MB, OSMUNDSEN M, ARCENEAUX K. The “Need for Chaos” and Motivations to Share Hostile Political Rumors. American Political Science Review. 2023;117(4):1486–1505. doi:10.1017/S0003055422001447

• (4), Droste, L. (2021) Feeling left behind by political decisionmakers: Anti-Establishment sentiment in contemporary democracies: Article, Politics and Governance. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i3.3949 (Accessed: 29 February 2024).

• (5), Inequality: Global trends (no date) Development Initiatives. Available at: https://devinit.org/resources/inequality-global-trends/#:~:text=According to the World Inequality,%2457%2C300 per adult in 2021. (Accessed: 29 February 2024).

• (6), Zhelnina, A. (2019) The apathy syndrome: How we are trained not to care about politics, OUP Academic. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/67/2/358/5527807 (Accessed: 29 February 2024).

• (7), LERNER, J.A. (2024) Making democracy fun: How game design can empower citizens and transform politics. S.l.: MIT PRESS.

I was born in Germany in 1984. Professionally speaking, I am a designer and digital creator, as well as the founder of The ALANA Project. Those of you who follow me on social media know about my creative endeavors and my passion for Web3 and cutting-edge technologies. But some of you might be surprised to hear that I have had a big passion for topics of governance and political philosophy my whole life.

Throughout my high school years, I was very active in school politics, and later on, I was accepted as a doctoral candidate to write in the field of political philosophy. Eventually, I decided not to continue my work on my PhD as it felt to me that I had nothing worthy to contribute or share with the world.

Now, many years later, I realize what brought me to this conclusion: When conducting my research, I looked back in time to find an answer for the future of democracy. I thought by studying the old classics, I would find an answer for a better tomorrow. Of course, I didn’t and ended up not continuing on this path.

Instead, I moved to Peru and continued my work as a designer. After moving, learning a new language, and starting to settle down one day, I was invited to join a Web3-enabled community that was focusing on digital fashion.

For those of you who might not know, Web3 is the next layer of the internet where the participant cannot only read and create but also own their data. While it took me some time to start understanding these new principles, I was more than just intrigued when I finally did understand them. At the same time, a new path opened up for me, seeing that many small communities had started to embrace alternate leadership models and forms of governance.

My question was heard: To design a democratic, sustainable future, we can look into the past but might only find what we are looking for in the future (as in technology and novel models).

David Henry Thoreau, an American naturalist and philosopher, knew this before really knowing it. In his work ‘Civil Disobedience’ he states:

That government is best which governs least.

Later on in the book, he clarifies that he doesn’t wish for ‘no-government’ but instead an ‘at once […] better government.’

Seeing what is happening around the globe and witnessing the dissatisfaction of citizens in various countries around the world today, I feel his words resonate stronger than ever before.

In my opinion, decentralized governance on a democratic level is the answer for our collective future. We have to stop looking back for solutions. Fascism will not be the answer; neither will socialism or any form of extremist politics. What will get us to the next level is democracy but a new way of performing it. A decentralized way supported by blockchain technology and a new mindset in people.

If you are wondering what you can do:

• Stop complaining :). It will not change anything, and furthermore, it is a waste of energy.

• Learn about Web3, and join legit communities that are striving to become decentralized or are decentralized already.

• Among those communities, find the one that aligns with your values most.

• Help your chosen community actively structure and organize itself.

• Bring in YOUR expertise and make your voice heard because, finally, you can!

The only change you are truly in the power of is your own. So, by taking on this revised attitude, I am sure we can move things around on a global scale and thoughtfully transition our current governments/ democracies into renewed models that will truly represent us. I don’t know about you, but I really don’t want to have to live through a Third World War, and neither do I want to kill anyone on commandos given by one central person who thinks a war is a great idea.

So, let’s find a silent form of revolution to replace these corroded structures over a defined period of time and learn together about new ways to implement them!

In collaboration with Neo-Cybernetics, I will be starting to publish a fundamental series on decentralized governance, and I hope you guys will stick around to read and share your feedback with me!

References:

• 1, Henry David Thoreau (2024) Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau (Accessed: 11 January 2024).