If politics were a Netflix show, I’d be wondering who greenlit this mess. Every day, we’re confronted with new headlines about Donald Trump’s reckless behavior in the White House, the Russian war on Ukraine, and other shocking stories, leaving us more exhausted than entertained. From COVID-19 and the climate crisis to increasing geopolitical tensions and widespread economic insecurity, “unprecedented” has become the new normal. Feeling powerless, confused and frustrated about contemporary politics, an increasing number of people are turning to far-right movements like the AfD in Germany or the MAGA Republicans. I never expected a transatlantic spin-off of 1930s European fascism, yet here we are now, in 2025, having to worry about the future of our liberal democracies.
While there are many different explanations for the success of the far-right, it’s crucial to recognize that the failure of mainstream parties to adequately respond to it has also played a critical role in fueling anti-democratic sentiment. Up until now, their common strategy to deal with the radical right has largely revolved around three approaches: (1) ignoring or downplaying the far-right, (2) appealing to democratic values and institutions, and (3) adopting some of the far-right policies, particularly on immigration. By trying to appear sensible, responsible and ‘anti-radical’ while simultaneously embracing aspects of the far-right’s agenda, these parties are attempting to strike a precarious balance — one that, so far, has largely backfired.
Like it or not, the success of the far-right isn’t just due to mere policy preferences regarding immigration or the economy: Western democracy is losing the trust of the people in its ability to solve the complex crises of our time. According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, a median of 54% of people across various democratic nations are dissatisfied with how democracy is working in their country. Meanwhile, a substantial 65% of respondents think that people like them can’t influence politics, and an even higher 74% of people believe that their elected officials don’t care about what they think. This development might be particularly tragic in the U.S., where most people agree that democracy is failing them: as things stand, 60% of registered voters say that the political and economic system in the U.S. needs major changes; 12% believe that the system needs to be torn down entirely.
Far-right populists have taken advantage of this by framing themselves as the only credible alternative to a “broken” system. Bolstered by right-wing media outlets and amplified through algorithmic echo chambers on social media platforms like X and Telegram, this strategic positioning enables the far-right to dominate public discourse around the shortcomings of the current political system and shape crucial narratives about the future trajectory of their respective country.
So, what is the political establishment doing to address these systemic grievances? — Not much. Instead of offering bold, transformative solutions to the crises of our time, mainstream political parties seem trapped in a cycle of reactionary politics, constantly playing catch-up to the far-right’s agenda and insisting on defending a status quo that many people believe doesn’t work anymore. By failing to recognize and address the root causes of public discontent, mainstream parties are increasingly perceived as elitist and out-of-touch with the public.
Kamala Harris’ unsuccessful 2024 bid for the U.S. presidency is a perfect example of why this popular approach doesn’t work: the Democrats lost because their “We Are Not Going Back” platform didn’t offer voters a vision on where the Democrats were planning on taking the country. Despite President Biden’s unpopularity and widespread frustrations with the U.S. economy, Harris failed to outline popular economic policies and didn’t manage to convince the public that she’d be a fundamentally different President than her predecessor. Instead of presenting a clear plan for improving U.S. institutions, the Democratic Party centered its campaign on warning against the dangers associated with a second Trump presidency. The Democrats’ “anti-Trump” campaign stood in stark contrast to the Republicans’ forward-looking platform, which was based on a simple yet persuasive vision for the country’s future: “America First.”
It’s a fatal mistake to think of democracy as a static concept, a one-of-a-kind historic invention, and a homogeneous practice of self-governance. There’s no such thing as “Democracy” — rather, there have been many various types of democratic organization over the course of human history, each the result of public political deliberation. It’s time that policymakers recognize this fact by accepting that the widespread discontent with the current workings of Western democracy is real and can’t be overcome without novel ideas for how democracy can be adapted to rebuild public trust and fulfill contemporary needs.
The distrust established parties face is as much about their track record to enact effective policies as it is based on their failure to be sufficiently proactive. “Politicians from conservative, center, and left-wing parties need to stop being afraid of their voters,” as Martin Ehl, chief analyst of the Czech Hospodářské noviny (Economic daily), effectively summarized. The fact that mainstream parties are sometimes afraid to “meet and face people to discuss their real problems” ultimately only allows far-right radicals to give voters the impression that they understand them and are on their side.
Mainstream parties must reclaim visionary politics from the far-right through a recognition of the lived reality of their voters and transform from defenders to reformers of the status quo. Movements to “disrupt” and dismantle democracy can only be stopped through creative narratives about how to “fix” it: the answer to public dissatisfaction with the current functioning of the “system” can’t be less democracy, but must mean more of it. At the end of the day, policymakers must realize that a government “of the people, for the people, by the people” can take many shapes and forms — but it can’t forsake the people themselves.