As we face a battle of ideas with autocracies, the traditional ringing justifications of democracy no longer carry much credence. Instead we have an uncertain, defensive debate about populism.
These days when people say "democracy" they really seem to mean, "rule by an interconnected web of institutions, both national, international and non-governmental, with significant input by universities and the media." I.e., rule by credentialed elites. That is why they can say, with a straight face, things like "we need to impose restrictions on speech to save democracy", or "on this election, democracy is on the ballot."
"democracy" means rule by credentialed elites with some token parcipation of the masses via the ballot box.
"populism" is the specter of what happens when the masses get what they want (e.g. stopping immigration, or stopping Western countries from funding wars in the Middle East and with Russia).
These days when people say "democracy" they really seem to mean, "rule by an interconnected web of institutions, both national, international and non-governmental, with significant input by universities and the media." I.e., rule by credentialed elites. That is why they can say, with a straight face, things like "we need to impose restrictions on speech to save democracy", or "on this election, democracy is on the ballot."
"democracy" means rule by credentialed elites with some token parcipation of the masses via the ballot box.
"populism" is the specter of what happens when the masses get what they want (e.g. stopping immigration, or stopping Western countries from funding wars in the Middle East and with Russia).