Millennials - democracy vs authoritarianism

[Second Summer]

Observing the incredibly polarized political climate in the US that has developed over several years now which has led to government shutdowns, an empty seat on the Supreme Court, and the circus which is the current US presidential election, one is left with the impression that democracy is not doing so well. Meanwhile, authoritarianism is alive and well, and appears to be expanding in popularity and uptake across the world.

With that in mind, is it any wonder that millennials are disenchanted with traditional, liberal democracy?

More than two thirds of American millennials do not consider it essential to live in a country that is governed democratically. About a quarter of them consider a democratic political system a "bad" or "very bad" way to run the country. At the same time, support for authoritarian alternatives is rising. In 1996, only 1 in 16 Americans said it would be good if the military ruled the country. By 2014, it was 1 in 6. Only 19 percent of millennials say it wouldn't be legitimate for the military to take over if the government proved incompetent or unable to do its job. A growing share of young people is in favor of a "strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament and elections" and a government of "experts" rather than politicians.

More: Democracy Turns Off Millennials. It Doesn't Have To. (23. October 2016)

 

[beancounter]

Well PC has taught Millennials to be mindless drones beholden to a narrow "acceptable" vocabulary, a means to shut out alternative ideas (safe spaces), and a narrative that doesn't allow for nuance, so yea, I can see them favoring authoritarianism.

 

[Second Summer]

Well PC has taught Millennials to be mindless drones beholden to a narrow "acceptable" vocabulary, a means to shut out alternative ideas (safe spaces), and a narrative that doesn't allow for nuance, so yea, I can see them favoring authoritarianism.

They might become disappointed if you end up with an authoritarian regime with a different ideology than theirs?

That aside, would authoritarian rule offer a better solution to the big issues in our time, such as climate change and environmental degradation?

 

[AeryFairy]

An interesting read. I'm definitely not anti-democracy, but I'm not totally surprised by the statistics - so many voters have become incredibly disenfranchised with the system (especially two-party systems), and some serious voting reform is needed in order to get governments which reflect people's interests.

I agreed with the conclusion to the article:

It may be that all that's needed to revive faith in democracy is to reform the electoral systems to be both more inclusive and more meritocratic, shifting attention from candidates' personalities and private lives to policies and issues. The rule changes needed for that don't have to be particularly drastic: something as simple as ranked-choice voting could lead to progress. If millennials feel they are represented by smart people who understand their agenda and have the necessary expertise to implement it, they may like politics better than they do now. And so may the older generations: They, too, are not immune from the irritation caused by crude election battles such as this year's.

I'm sure most brits will remember, but people from other countries may not - the ranked-choice voting system was something we had a referendum on here in the UK about 5 years ago or so (United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011 - Wikipedia). I'm still disappointed at the 'no' vote on it - it wouldn't have been a perfect system but it would have been a hell of a lot better. No more strategic voting, just rank the parties from best to worst and your vote will always be counted. Politics in the UK might be very different now if it had passed.

 

[Mischief]

Well PC has taught Millennials to be mindless drones beholden to a narrow "acceptable" vocabulary, a means to shut out alternative ideas (safe spaces), and a narrative that doesn't allow for nuance, so yea, I can see them favoring authoritarianism.

Pretty funny, actually.

You're pretty angry at the whole social justice thing, aren't you? It seems to permeate your thinking on such a wide spectrum of issues.

I tend to agree with AeryFairy on this topic.

 

[beancounter]

You're pretty angry at the whole social justice thing, aren't you? It seems to permeate your thinking on such a wide spectrum of issues.

No, not anger. Just making an effort to expose them for what they really are/represent.

The majority of people on this board are sympathetic or potentially sympathetic to the movement, so I think this is a more meaningful use of my time than just staying on topics that are nothing more than preaching to the choir.

 

[Blues]

Well I am not from the USofA ...and don't even vote, but they changed the system years ago in NZ (you get 2 votes down here ) which allows more views/ parties into Parliament .

 

[Blues]

^^^ I must add the system down here is not perfect, it needs a few minor changes , but its a vast improvement on what had .

 

[Spang]

Anti-PC is a politically correct term for racist.

 

[beancounter]

Anti-PC is a politically correct term for racist.

Yes, that's a good example of their narrowly defined views and vocabulary. Especially since PC speak cover more than just racism.

 

[Second Summer]

An interesting read. I'm definitely not anti-democracy, but I'm not totally surprised by the statistics - so many voters have become incredibly disenfranchised with the system (especially two-party systems), and some serious voting reform is needed in order to get governments which reflect people's interests.

I'm sure most brits will remember, but people from other countries may not - the ranked-choice voting system was something we had a referendum on here in the UK about 5 years ago or so (United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011 - Wikipedia). I'm still disappointed at the 'no' vote on it - it wouldn't have been a perfect system but it would have been a hell of a lot better. No more strategic voting, just rank the parties from best to worst and your vote will always be counted. Politics in the UK might be very different now if it had passed.

Yes, that was incredibly disappointing. So, does that mean Brits are generally happy with the laughable system you have? And faced with a choice between this and an authoritarian, but otherwise more sane system a bit more in tune with your favoured policies, what would you prefer?

 

[AeryFairy]

Yes, that was incredibly disappointing. So, does that mean Brits are generally happy with the laughable system you have? And faced with a choice between this and an authoritarian, but otherwise more sane system a bit more in tune with your favoured policies, what would you prefer?

I don't think it does mean that Brits are happy with the system we have. There was so much misinformation being spread that a lot of people didn't know what AV actually was or how it worked - some people thought it meant people would get multiple votes, some thought it would mean they would have to vote over and over again, lots of people thought it just didn't make sense because the 'yes' campaign were vague on the details and the 'no' campaign was comprised mostly of the people who stood to lose a lot of power and were willing to outright lie to keep it

I'd still rather have what we have than a system in which the people have no say whatsoever.

 

[Freesia]

What we have is not democracy in many countries, it is elitism/oligarchy. Easy to become disillusioned with that, no matter what your age.

 

[Mischief]

I kind of doubt that the study quoted in the OP accurately reflects how millenials react IRL, otherwise you'd be seeing them flocking to Trump, an unabashedly and openly authoritarian candidate if there ever was one. They are in fact running away from Trump.

 

[Second Summer]

I kind of doubt that the study quoted in the OP accurately reflects how millenials react IRL, otherwise you'd be seeing them flocking to Trump, an unabashedly and openly authoritarian candidate if there ever was one. They are in fact running away from Trump.

While Trump appears to have authoritarian tendencies, I don't think he's so appealing to the younger generations because he's the kind of politician who is appealing to tradition, the "good old days", which in fact weren't all that good in many areas that are important to millennials. I suppose the ideal president to the millennials would be a benevolent, smooth technocrat / authoritarian, whose government is transparent and responsive to the concerns of its citizens, and gets on with the job without too many political biases. (Or at least that it what I've gleaned from a couple of news articles on this subject.)

 

[ledboots]

Yes, that was incredibly disappointing. So, does that mean Brits are generally happy with the laughable system you have? And faced with a choice between this and an authoritarian, but otherwise more sane system a bit more in tune with your favoured policies, what would you prefer?

You call the British political system "laughable"? How rude.

 

[Second Summer]

You call the British political system "laughable"? How rude.

It may be considered rude by some, but let me explain why I think it's laughable:

In the UK's First Past The Post electoral system, the Parliament candidate with the most votes in a constituency is elected, and all the votes for other candidates in the constituency then count for nothing. If you live in a "safe seat" constituency, then your vote really doesn't matter much. You won't be able to contribute to your preferred political party's success.

Additionally, the ruling party often attempt gerrymandering - i.e. manipulating the constituency borders so as to favour their own chances of winning in the future.

Contrast this system to an proportional electoral system where a political party's number of parliament seats is awarded proportionally according to the share of votes they received in the election as a whole, and you can see why this kind of system seems so much more fair.

 

[Blues]

It may be considered rude by some, but let me explain why I think it's laughable:

In the UK's First Past The Post electoral system, the Parliament candidate with the most votes in a constituency is elected, and all the votes for other candidates in the constituency then count for nothing. If you live in a "safe seat" constituency, then your vote really doesn't matter much. You won't be able to contribute to your preferred political party's success.

Additionally, the ruling party often attempt gerrymandering - i.e. manipulating the constituency borders so as to favour their own chances of winning in the future.

Contrast this system to an proportional electoral system where a political party's number of parliament seats is awarded proportionally according to the share of votes they received in the election as a whole, and you can see why this kind of system seems so much more fair.

Your first paragraph was the very reason NZ dumped it , it all turned to nothing when an elected government received less votes than the losing party ,and another party received 100,000 votes and received no seats in Parliament .

And yes, the "gerrymandering " as you call, it was rife in NZ .

So a proportional system was set up ....more or less along the lines you have mentioned

 

[Freesia]

The sad thing is that no Western country has a democracy. What we all have is oligarchies disguised as democracies.. our parliaments and politicians are merely a shop front with the politicians as shop workers/salespeople..

while they have various amounts of influence and power, where the action is is in the back room/warehouse, and we are not allowed to see what is out there.

The world is really run by some very wealthy people who are upper management of giant corporations, plus some billionaire/trillionaire aristocrats...

money talks more than office. So I think it is always very silly when a Western country tries to go to another country to introduce "democracy".

 

[Andy_T]

To be honest, reading the original article, I would not necessarily jump to the same conclusions as the authors.

Yes, 70 % of "Millenials" did not give a "perfect" 10/10 rating to the question "Do you consider it important to live in a democratically governed country" ... but that might also, IMO, reflect that they were not indoctrinated as much during their formative years with that dogma. IMO it does not necessarily mean that they would happily give up their democratic rights.

I would rather go for a more conclusive statement like "I think it would be good if a 'strong man' could govern the country without having to take the views of minorities into consideration", for which I personally feel that support by "Baby Boomers" (particularly those not belonging to a minority) would likely be higher.