Amanpour & Co., which airs on taxpayer-supported PBS, on Tuesday called the 2024 elections a “make-or-break moment for democracy” in the “flawed democracy” known as the United States, because of the risks of a victory by former president Donald Trump. The Economist deputy editor Tom Standage talked to Amanpour reporter Hari Sreenivasan, who set up Standage to discuss his story.
Sreenivasan: You have a quote in there that I want to pull out. It says, “in theory, it should be a triumphant year for democracy in practice, it will be the opposite.” Why?
Standage: ….So, if I'm talking to you from London, and we're going to have an election in Britain in 2024, and it seems very likely that the current government will be chucked out. Now, that's, you know, one of the features of democracy that you should be able to vote to change the government or change the leadership. And if you go to the other end of the spectrum, we also know there's going to be an election in Russia in 2024, and I could tell you what the result of that election is going to be right now. Vladimir Putin is going to be -- he's going to win….I have to say that the two biggest democracies in the world, India and the United States, both of which are voting next year, are both classified as flawed democracies for one reason or another….
One “flaw” Standage mentioned is known in the United States as gerrymandering, but the British-born journalist soon warned of America’s real problem: The possibility that Trump could win.
Sreenivasan: ….what's different about it this time, you think?
Standage: Well, a few things. I think last time Donald Trump was president, he tried to do various things and a lot of the things he tried to do, he was prevented from doing. And this time around, he seems to be planning to ensure that he can make more of the changes. He wants to, you know, politicize the sort of executive, the -- things like the Department of Justice. He wants to chuck out everybody and replace them with his own people who can then prosecute his enemies and that sort of thing. So, that's very concerning….
Standage, who sounded suspiciously satisfied with democracy given that the Conservative Party in his home country was “likely” to get “chucked out” at the next election (see above quote), was disturbed that a conservative party out of power in another country might democratically win its way back to power. He didn’t stop at Trump’s election denial but snuck in his own ideological stance, discussing ideas from the Trump camp -- such as pulling out of NATO or halting aid to Ukraine – as if they were prima facie examples of anti-democracy.
Standage: …..But I think the other big difference is that the world now is sort of much more aware of the global implications of a second Trump presidency. If Americans want to vote for Donald Trump in America, that's fine. That's, of course, up to them, and it's their democratic choice. But the global implications would potentially be huge. He's talking about pulling out of NATO. Obviously, he wants to pull the plug on support for Ukraine. We don't know what he'd do over Taiwan.
As of now, Americans in Colorado couldn’t vote for Trump even if they wanted to. No “democratic choice” there. What would Standage have said if the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court had broken before this interview?
When one hears liberal caterwauling over the Death of Democracy in 2024, don’t forget how strenuously and undemocratically the Democratic Party and its media allies pushed back in 2016 for “faithless electors” in the Electoral College to vote for someone besides Trump and enable his losing Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton to triumph.
A transcript is available, click “Expand.”
Amanpour & Co.
12/20/23
1:59:25 a.m. (ET)
Now, as the year comes to a close, we look ahead to 2024, which is set to bring a world of challenges from turmoil in the Middle East, a grueling battle in Ukraine to growing tensions over Taiwan. And on top of that, more than half the global population is heading to the polls in a groundbreaking year of elections. The most important of which will be in the United States, and that will likely be a Trump Biden rematch. Deputy editor of "The Economist," Tom Standage, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the 10 trends to watch in 2024.
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Tom Standage, thanks so much for joining us. You write in "The World Ahead" in 2024 that it is a pivotal year for democracies. Why so?
TOM STANDAGE, DEPUTY EDITOR, THE ECONOMIST: Well, we think it's the first time in human history where most people in the world, more than half of the global population, live in a country that will hold an election in 2024. So, it's about 4.2 billion people. And the population of the world, as you know, is 8.1 billion. So, that means that more than half -- most people in the world are living in a country that will have a national election in the coming year, and that's never happened before. And so, you would say, well, that surely is a triumph for democracy, but I think it's going to put a spotlight on the nature of democracy and the fact that there is more to democracy than voting that there's, yes, sure, a great big quantity of voting happening, but there's actually quantity and quality when it comes to democracy.
SREENIVASAN: You know, you have a quote in there that I want to pull out. It says, in theory, it should be a triumphant year for democracy in practice, it will be the opposite. Why?
STANDAGE: Well, because a lot of these democracies are extremely flawed. So, at "The Economist," our sister company, the EIU, actually prepares something called a democracy index, and it gives every democracy around the world a score. And some countries are classed as full democracies. So, if I'm talking to you from London, and we're going to have an election in Britain in 2024, and it seems very likely that the current government will be chucked out. Now, that's, you know, one of the features of democracy that you should be able to vote to change the government or change the leadership. And if you go to the other end of the spectrum, we also know there's going to be an election in Russia in 2024, and I could tell you what the result of that election is going to be right now. Vladimir Putin is going to be -- he's going to win. He's going to continue to be president of Russia, and he wouldn't be having that election at all unless he was sure that he could guarantee that outcome. So, that's not a democracy. That is a sham. And then, you have lots of other countries in the middle that sort of are more or less authoritarian. And then, sort of right at the top, just below the full democracies, you get the flawed democracies. And I have to say that the two biggest democracies in the world, India and the United States, both of which are voting next year, are both classified as flawed democracies for one reason or another. So, it is still possible for the outcome to change the leadership of the country, but there are other problems with their democracies.
SREENIVASAN: Being here in the United States, I've got to ask, well, what is the definition o flawed or and why does the United States meet that of a flawed democracy?
STANDAGE: So, there's no single definition. It's a question of how many points you score on a range of metrics. But essentially, in the case of the U.S., there's a few problems. There's very clearly a sort of breakdown in trust in the whole democratic process, whether you're on the left or the right, you think that the process is broken in one way or another. And then, there's also things like, you know -- I mean, as an outsider, it seems extraordinary that in America, politicians are allowed to draw the boundaries of their own elections. You have sort of partisan boundary commissions. And I mean, not in the whole of America, I think California has sort of gone back to the sort of situation you get in many other parts of the world. But essentially, that means that you can draw electoral boundaries that guarantee that your guy always wins. And what does that mean? The only way that you can lose in a situation like that is if you are primaried by someone more extreme from your own party. So, that is a recipe for polarization, which is exactly what we've seen in America. So -- and then, that in turn leads to a breakdown in trust in the overall democratic process. So, that's the kind of thing. I mean, to be fair, the -- I think the U.S. scores seven and a bit out of 10 which is pretty good.
SREENIVASAN: Yes.
STANDAGE: It's only just a flawed democracy.
SREENIVASAN: Now, you are also a publication that says that this election coming in the United States is incredibly important. It's one of the most -- if not the most crucial, that our future is on the line, that we have heard that over and over again from 2016 to 2012, 2020. So, what's different about it this time, you think?
STANDAGE: Well, a few things. I think last time Donald Trump was president, he tried to do various things and a lot of the things he tried to do, he was prevented from doing. And this time around, he seems to be planning to ensure that he can make more of the changes. He wants to, you know, politicize the sort of executive, the -- things like the Department of Justice. He wants to chuck out everybody and replace them with his own people who can then prosecute his enemies and that sort of thing. So, that's very concerning. And also, he's making noises about how, you know, at the end of the term, if he wins again, he might want to stay on for a bit longer. I think there's a word for that where you get to stay in power for as long as you like. And I seem to remember that you weren't terribly keen on that arrangement in the 18th century. But anyway, so there's that. But I think the other big difference is that the world now is sort of much more aware of the global implications of a second Trump presidency. If Americans want to vote for Donald Trump in America, that's fine. That's, of course, up to them, and it's their democratic choice. But the global implications would potentially be huge. He's talking about pulling out of NATO. Obviously, he wants to pull the plug on support for Ukraine. We don't know what he'd do over Taiwan.
SREENIVASAN: I wonder what the consequence is of reelecting a president that was discontent with the results last time and actively tried to overturn those results. If he was to get back in power, what does that signal, I guess, to the world about us, the grand experiment that is democracy?
STANDAGE: Yes, exactly. It's -- I mean, America is -- it's not a great advertisement for democracy right now, and it would be an even worse one if you have an election denier who comes back in, says that maybe we don't need elections anymore in the future. And the other weird thing about it was that, you know, the 2020 election, it was the -- you know, he's cast doubt on the -- you know, the big lie is that he really won the presidential election. But miraculously, the cheating only he claims happened for the presidential election. And all of the -- you know, the Senate seats and the House of Representatives seats, that -- all of that worked fine. I mean, it seems very implausible that the meddling only happens in one part of the ticket when, you know, people are voting on the same piece of paper. So, yes, the whole thing is deeply implausible. And you know, it's -- it would just send a very odd message to people around the world to whom America is trying to preach the virtues of democracy. But America doesn't preach the virtues of democracy quite as much as it used to. The place where democracy really needs defending right now is Ukraine. And it's pretty clear that, you know, Republicans don't want to be continuing to support Ukraine financially and militarily in the way that it has been. And that's very perilous, not just for Ukraine, but for, you know, a European democracy that is in grave danger.
SREENIVASAN: I wonder, since you mentioned Ukraine, right now, one of the central premises for President Biden is that we need to support democracies such as Ukraine with arms. We need to support the democracy that is Israel with our support in the Israel Gaza conflict, right? And I wonder as these tensions keep getting strained further and further and as the public might evolve their thinking about what they're willing to stomach, what does that do to that sort of underlying principle that seems to be the binding factor here, which is that we need to support democracies?
STANDAGE: Yes, exactly. And I think there is -- you know, America has gone through isolationist periods in the past and seems to be going into one now. I think what I'd say, particularly with regard to Ukraine, because that seems to be where there is more resistance to continued funding, and we know that the Republicans historically have beef with Ukraine and with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in particular.
But just being completely sort of, you know, looking at an accountant's view of this, this is an incredible deal for the United States to basicall wear down the military of one of your biggest geopolitical rivals without having to put American servicemen and women in the line of fire and, you know, at very low cost, because, in effect, the subsidies that you give to Ukraine are going straight in a large -- for a large part of it, it's going straight to your own arms companies.
So, it's subsidies, it's creating jobs at home in America, and it's wearing down the Russian military at very -- this is an incredible deal. So, even if you don't care at all about democracy but you do care about, you know, America's continuing, you know, military supremacy over other powers, then I don't know why you wouldn't want to continue to support Ukraine. So, yes, it's a mystery to me. And yes, I realize that there are concerns about border security and so forth, but you can have both, right? I mean, this is a great deal and America should be continuing to support Ukraine just for that reason, for its own self-interest.
