The Main Symptoms and Root Causes of American Democracy Decline

Americans have always been proud of their democratic system. Since the end of World War II， the United States has even used its democratic system as a template to “democratize” some other countries. However， in recent years， the domestic democratic chaos in the United States has intensified， causing widespread doubts about the American political system and its democratic model. According to the assessment of the Economist， the United States is no longer a “full democracy” in the world （such as Canada， Japan and most countries in Western Europe）， but a “flawed democracy” （such as Greece， Israel， Poland and Brazil）. The decay of American democracy is closely related to the changes in the international landscape and political environment， as well as the evolution of domestic politics， economy and society in the United States.

The Main Symptoms of American Democracy Decline

The democratic system of the US has indeed played an important role in its struggle to make the US the most powerful country in the world. The United States boasts itself as “a shining city upon a hill and a beacon of democracy”. However， in recent years， the decline or even variation of domestic democracy in the United States has been on the rise. Not only have American elites have begun to reflect on the decline of their democratic system， but the general public is also greatly dissatisfied with American democracy. Generally speaking， the problems of American democracy are mainly manifested in the following aspects.

First， political polarization leads to inefficient governance. Political polarization is a typical symptom of the chaotic American party politics in recent years. The so-called political polarization means that political parties can’t communicate effectively and compromise with each other， and instead they race to the extremes， resulting in irreconcilable divisions. This kind of antagonism is palpable among the American elite and grassroots voters， but the most representative one is the struggle between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in Congress. When voting on a bill， members of both parties often draw the line strictly according to the party position， not caring about the social effect of legislation， while simply trying to prevent the other party from succeeding. Both sides pursue short-term interests at the expense of the effectiveness of the democratic system， and this tit-for-tat practice will inevitably lead to a vicious circle. Neither side will give up its partisan position and support the other’s legislative initiative merely because it has social significance. Every year， the vast majority of bills end up stillborn， especially some important legislation related to the national economy and the people’s livelihood， which causes a large number of social problems to drag on for a long time， and the legislature has lost its basic functions to some extent.

Second， the struggle between the government and the Congress led to policy unpredictability. The U.S. Congress is the legislative body， but the laws it makes need to be specifically implemented by administrative agencies. If the two belong to different parties， policy implementation will hardly be smooth， and administrative agencies can resist in disguise by delaying implementation， misappropriating funds， and formulating" implementation guidelines. As the struggle between the two parties in Congress has become more and more fierce in recent years， the president has increasingly adopted the way of issuing executive orders to bypass Congress and go his own way. Although the executive order has legal effect， it has no legal status， so the next president can revoke the executive order of his or her predecessor at will after the change of government. Although the influence of executive order in the political and social sphere of the United States is increasing， its policy prospect is extremely unstable， especially when the old and new owners of the White House belong to different parties. Under the circumstances， once the new president takes office， he or she will overturn the policies of his or her predecessor. This drastic change will seriously interfere with the work plans of all parties concerned， making it difficult for both the US and other countries to adapt， and hence significantly reduce the trust of all parties in the US government.

Third， judicial interference leads to check and balance failure. The judicial system of the United States is relatively independent and low-key among the three branches of power. Its working principle includes the so-called “Four No Trials” and its core connotation is to try not to interfere in political issues or intervene in disputes between the White House and Congress. However， this principle has been repeatedly undermined in recent years. On the one hand， it is because all political problems in the United States tend to evolve into judicial problems， and it is difficult for courts to stay out of the way. On the other hand， and more importantly， the partisanship of the judicial system is getting ever stronger. Judges at all levels begin to take the initiative to intervene in political cases， and directly interfere with key cases by using the power of judicial review， which indirectly affects political operation， agenda setting and personnel selection. As judicial decisions are similar to legislation， and judges are not elected officials， this practice obviously violates the original intention of American constitutional designers and the democratic standard of handing over legislation power to elected institutions. The American people used to count on the independence of the judicial system， but nowadays， most Americans are of the view that the main motive of court’s ruling is politics rather than law.

Fourth， the election chaos led to the decline of democracy. One of the core frameworks of the American democratic system is electoral democracy， but it is precisely the electoral democracy that has been criticized the most in recent years. From the federal level， there has been phenomena in which an incumbent president refused to accept the election results and improperly interacted with thugs who violently prevented the vice president from announcing the election results， convicted by a judge as the presidential candidate and the winner of the Democratic Party’s primary election was forced to give up his candidacy. What has happened is unprecedented. The Supreme Court also actively intervened in the qualification judgment of candidates， prevented the further implementation of measures to make voting more convenient， interfered with the validity of some redistricting efforts， and left room for manoeuvre on voters’ ID verification. At the state level， some state courts politicize election management， reduce the convenience for voters， put forward stricter restrictions on mailing ballots and prevent election competition through extreme redistricting. Various means to interfere in elections emerge one after another. The regularity， impartiality， independence and convenience in the election have been markedly eroded. These measures constantly break through the tacit agreement in American politics， bring severe challenges to the stability of American constitutional system， cause many new problems， and clearly damage the political participation rights of some voters， resulting in a significant decline in the quality of American democratic politics.

Fifth， the decline in public confidence has led to social unrest. In recent years， more and more Americans believe that the health of American democracy is in decline. In January 2022， a poll conducted by National Public Radio showed that 64% of Americans believed that American democracy was “in crisis and at risk of failure”. There were also some Americans whose attitudes towards the “undemocratic system” changed significantly， and nearly a quarter of Americans were “highly inclined to authoritarianism”. One-fifth of the American people said they were open to military rule， while in the 1990s， this proportion was only one sixteenth. More than one-fifth of Americans said that violence was sometimes justified as it was either to protect democracy or to protect American culture and values. In this context， threats against members of Congress in the United States have increased from less than 1，000 in 2016 to 8，000–10，000 in 2023， an increase of nearly 10 times. In 2022， three-tenths of election workers said that since the 2020 general election， they often felt unsafe at work. Clearly， American society has witnessed an increasingly turbulent trend.

Disadvantages of American Constitutional Design Are Prominent

The decline of American democracy is not a new topic. However， in recent years， there have been some unprecedented changes in the political operation of the United States. The traditional sense of American democracy and its basic pillars have apparently cracked and even begun to partially collapse. The problems left over from American constitutional design have increasingly come to the fore， which is an important reason for American democracy downturn. The constitutional system based on the past failed to keep pace with the times and therefore its ability to guide reality declined. The performance of American constitutional system at the founding of the United States and in the process of its rise proved that it was once advanced and far-sighted. However， with the evolution of the times， the problems that have not been considered and have long existed in the constitutional design make it more and more difficult to adapt to the real needs. Not only does it fail to provide effective guidance to reality， but it also begins to hinder the self-adjustment of American politics to adapt to the current situation. The disadvantages left over from American constitutional design are mainly reflected in the following aspects.

First， though power balance underscores fairness， it is unable to guarantee effectiveness. The essence of the American constitutional system is “Separation of Powers， Checks and Balances”， which means that the legislative， judicial and executive powers are authorized by the Constitution and cannot be replaced by each other， but they could play the role of checks and balances by exerting influence within the other’s sphere of influence. The purpose of this constitutional system design is to make it impossible for a single party to control all government powers， and its core principle is to prevent dictatorship， but the decentralization of power will inevitably lead to inefficiency. Because the three power centers are often controlled by different political parties， their goal is often to prevent the other party from growing strong， rather than serving the interests of the public. In recent years， due to the increasingly serious polarization of parties， the role of power checks and balances has changed from preventing dictatorship to preventing the other party from getting things done. Even if the same party controls three power centers， this system design enables a few members to filibuster popular policy bills， and many policies and legislation that benefit the country and the public are difficult to advance within the Congress.

Second， the excessive protection of minority rights and interests catalyzes veto politics. The British immigrants who first arrived in the American continent belonged to minorities and dissidents in their home countries. Influenced by their ideas， the founders of the United States paid special attention to the protection of the rights and interests of minorities （not in the same sense as ethnic minorities）. The protection of the rights and interests of small states also embodied similar values. In the daily operation of American politics， the Electoral College system gives the minority voters in swing states greater rights， and the senators from small states are no different from the senators from big states in terms of power representation. Moreover， the appointment of officials cannot reflect the wishes of the majority. Trump won the election for the first time not by obtaining the majority of popular votes， and during his term in office， he nominated three Supreme Court justices who served for life. The Washington Post’s research shows that since 1998， the Republican Party has occupied a majority of seats in the Senate for a total of 12 years. During this period， the number of voters represented by Republicans did not exceed half of the national population. However， it’s actually these senators representing minority voters that are given the right to appoint all administrative officials and court judges， and these appointed officials are responsible for formulating or ruling on policies that everyone must abide by. At the same time， as it takes two-thirds of the votes in the Senate to break a filibuster， a few senators virtually get to veto legislative initiatives that serve the interests of the majority. These institutional designs end up giving rise to veto politics， the root cause is that the US constitutional thought attaches too much importance to the protection of minority rights and interests.

Third， the Electoral College system is increasingly difficult to meet the actual needs. The founders of the United States， being exceptional elites themselves， harbored profound distrust toward the middle and lower classes. This precisely motivated the design of the Electoral College system， intending to hand over power to the voters’ representatives. In the presidential election， as each state adopts a single winner and winner-take-all system instead of proportional representation， the person who wins more electoral votes may not necessarily win more popular votes. Since the mature two-party system came into being in the United States， there have been four such cases， and all the beneficiaries are Republican candidates. This is related to the source distribution of Republican voters， the residency of Democratic voters and the principle of constituency division. At the same time， the electoral system in the United States also makes it impossible for candidates from other parties than the two to run in fair competition， let alone stand out. Under the constraints of Electoral College rules， both parties have obtained some so-called iron-vote states， while some swing states and even swing counties have become the most important factors in determining the result of the national election. Since the beginning of the 21st century， it has become more frequent to win presidency by Electoral College votes instead of popular votes， which is obviously contrary to the basic democratic principles of the United States. The states controlled by the Democratic Party tried to work together to solve this problem. They advocated for giving the state electoral votes to the candidate who won more national popular votes， but this fairer practice was suspected of being unconstitutional and never really implemented.

Fourth， the fuzzy division of federal and state powers leads to “democratic internal friction”. The division of power between the federal government and the states of the United States is rather vague. The constitution established when the United States was founded granted the Congress explicit and tacit power. Back then， in order to appease the anti-federalists and make them agree to join the United States as soon as possible， the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution in 1791 proposed that the powers that were not granted to the federal government or prohibited from being exercised by the states should be reserved by the states themselves. With the development of the times， there are more and more issues that affect cross-state boundaries， but a large number of issues related to the national economy and people’s livelihood are still decided by the states themselves， which causes a series of problems. For example， each state has its own way of handling important election issues such as constituency division， electoral system， and vote counting methods， which leads to the difference in the face value of each vote among states and counties within the state， blatantly against the basic principles of American democracy. Another example is that each state has the right to make independent decisions on many sensitive issues， such as abortion， the death penalty and the legality of same-sex marriage. The laws of two neighboring states may be completely different， which is easy to exploit loopholes on the one hand， and intensifies the contradictions between state governments on the other. In recent years， as the influence of political parties has deepened and the scope of interests involved in sensitive issues has expanded， the issue of power distribution has grown increasingly prominent. This has resulted in a steady stream of legal disputes between federal and state governments， thereby contributing to what can be described as “democratic internal friction”.

Fifth， the procedural constraints make it impossible to solve problems. At the time when the Constitution was drafted in the late 18th century， there were only nine states in the United States， and white men without property and women had no right to vote. Black slaves were only counted as three-fifths of a person. With the passage of time， the basic environment in which the Constitution functions has undergone tremendous changes， and especially since the 21st century， the Constitution has gradually become outdated. Therefore， amending the Constitution to adapt to reality has become inevitable. However， to prevent dictators from amending the Constitution at will， the founding fathers of the United States set the threshold for amending the Constitution so high that it is almost impossible to achieve. It requires the approval of two-thirds of the members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate， as well as the approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures in the 50 states. Under the current conditions of opposition between the two parties from the federal to the local level， this is mission impossible. Although there have been more than 12，000 proposals for constitutional amendments over the years， only 33 have been approved by Congress and submitted to the states， and only 27 of them have been ratified. Currently， some of the problems plaguing the United States are not unsolvable， but solving them requires first breaking through the procedural constraints. Measured by current standards， the US Constitution contains more conservative elements. Since the conservatives are satisfied with the provisions of the Constitution and the composition of the Supreme Court， which has the power to interpret the Constitution， they refuse to work with the liberals to amend the Constitution. As a result， the solution of constitutional amendments remains elusive.

Imbalance in Economic and Social Development Has Eroded the Democratic Framework of the United States

In recent years， under the impact of various international and domestic factors， the economic and social development of the United States has become increasingly unbalanced， identity politics has been strengthened， and social contradictions have been intensified， leading to the consistent erosion of its democratic structure.

First， the gap between the elite and the common people has widened further， leading to an intensification of social contradictions. The development of globalization， the accelerated technological progress and the surging immigration tide worldwide have brought about complex impacts on the entire world. Within the United States， globalization not only leads to a further concentration of wealth and an exacerbation of the wealth gap， but also causes the interests of the affluent elite and the income-declining middle and lower classes to further diverge and intensify their opposition. This opposition is mainly manifested in values. The elites begin to shift their focus of attention to extreme liberalism and strong humanitarianism， paying more attention to the interests of minority groups rather than the majority， and supporting outcome equality rather than procedural equality. While the public’s focus is on high prices， income decline， increased social insecurity and the reduction of their own political discourse power. Both sides believe that the United States is increasingly not like the one they envision， and their opposition is manifested in the confrontation of idealistic values and social realism， that is， the identity confrontation of the so-called “two Americas”. At the same time， the elite-centered governance and the popularization of elections have also become a new feature of the operation of American politics. When the government is in power， it pays more attention to the demands of the elite， so the public launches a powerful counterattack against the elites in elections. On the one hand， this provides an opportunity for right-wing elites under the banner of populism to rise， and on the other hand， it exacerbates the division and turmoil in American society.

Second， cultural wars run parallel to racial issues， intensifying the antagonism in conflicts. The recent cultural wars in the United States have attracted much attention. The “Great Awakening” initiated by the far-left and the new racism advocated by the far-right are typical manifestations of cultural wars. Since the 21st century， the United States has experienced the war on terror and the financial crisis， with economic inequality and value conflicts gradually intensifying. From the right-wing’s “Tea Party” movement to the left-wing’s “Occupy Wall Street” movement， from the Obama administration’s promotion of the “Bathroom Bill” to the Trump era’s “America First”， the conservative and liberal forces in the United States have engaged in intense confrontations. From the perspective of the triggers of the cultural wars， the two key issues are race and gender rights. As the United States has become more diverse， urbanized， internationalized and secularized， the white population， which still dominates in the United States， has shown ideological differentiation. Some white Americans have experienced a strong sense of anxiety， worrying that they will lose their original political， economic and social advantages. Another group of people， however， has begun to reflect and look over their past experiences as perpetrators and demand that the government compensate the victims. The rights of minorities and women have become the focus of attention from all sides， which further spills over to gender identity rights. During this process， the so-called “white lefts” （white extremist leftists） have acted extremely condescending， hypocritical and naive. They are skilled in moral blackmail， pursuing unlimited freedom， advocating unprincipled love， and even showing no reflection on their pursuit of policies that violate basic common sense. Their so-called “political correctness” even affects the normal research in the academic community. While the right-wing forces stand on the opposite side， emphasizing “America First” and “Make America Great Again”， what they truly care about is making the traditional United States centered on white people great again and the once great America does not mind whether the rights of other races should be guaranteed. Their value concepts contain strong racist overtones. In reality， the proportion of minorities in the United States’ population has been increasing year by year. According to the current growth rate， some predict that minorities may become the majority of the United States in 2047. However， in terms of wealth distribution， minority families have always been unable to match white families. In 2019， the median income and average wealth of African-American families were less than 15% of those of white families， and the wealth of Hispanic families was less than 20% of that of white families. In the long history of American politics， there has always been a fundamental conflict between the “racial color blindness” and the “racial consciousness” alliance. Compared with the past， the current situation where racial and religious factors are superimposed with party identities has produced a “mega identity”， strengthening party biases and mutual hostility， and making reconciliation even more difficult.

Third， the reinforcement of party affiliation is both an outcome and a driving force. The US Constitution does not mention the concept of political parties， but George Washington， who sought to remain aloof from political affairs， was well aware that the differentiation of interests would inevitably lead to the emergence of political parties. In 1860， the United States established a stable two-party system， and since then， the two parties have engaged in mutual struggles and alternated in governance. Although there have been serious polarization and opposition in history， if measured by the voting behavior of members of Congress， the current polarization is the most severe. There are multiple reasons for the intensification of party polarization. The process of democratization in the United States has strengthened the democratic consciousness of various groups. To safeguard their own interests， they increasingly tend to solve problems through organization. Globalization and the new technological revolution have led to an intensification of the differentiation of interests and wealth， and groups that believe their interests have been damaged have become increasingly dissatisfied with reality. The rapid increase in legal and illegal immigrants has made it difficult for social resources to meet the needs of indigenous people， and various groups tend to satisfy their own interests by following a certain political party. The differentiation of interests and the scarcity of resources will inevitably press voters to go to extremes. The continuous polarization of political parties driven by the demands of voters is also an inevitable result of the evolution of political and economic conditions. At the same time， this very reality has been exploited by certain candidates. They resort to extreme methods to stir up emotions within the party， mobilize extreme forces， co-opt moderate factions， intensify conflicts with opponents， deliberately make enemies， and induce more voters to stand on their side. They only focus on their chances of winning and never consider the harm this may bring to American democracy. This kind of phenomenon exists in both parties. Therefore， party polarization in the United States has developed a self-reinforcing trend. Over time， both parties have become increasingly stubborn and rigid， emphasizing identity politics and believing that “the people of the opposing party are more closed， dishonest， immoral， and less intelligent than other Americans”. Party polarization has thus become both the result of the differentiation of social values and interests and the incentive for further polarization.

Fourth， the development of information industry makes the society enter a truth-free era， which catalyzes and intensifies social contradictions. In recent years， with the rapid rise of social media， especially the resulting efficient， disorderly and multi-source information dissemination， the influence and credibility of traditional media have been substantially compromised， and traditional media can do nothing about it other than watch their own territory being taken. This is mainly seen in the following aspects. First， the sources of information are diversified and are no longer controlled by traditional media， and social media frequently release information contrary to traditional media， breaking the monopoly of traditional media on information sources. Second， information is easily guided by the so-called “opinion leader” and “big V” and thus politicized， becoming an effective weapon to attack the other side and more “useful”. Third， the widespread use of algorithms and big data has spawned an “information cocoon room”， which continuously reinforces people’s values. Fourth， as rational people chose to keep silent online， network extremists win more rights to speak， conspiracy theories prevail and the division of online and offline societies intensifies. In the post-truth era， there is no authority and trust， which makes it easier for extreme politicians to stand out and guide public opinion. The founding fathers of the United States put the freedom of the press and speech at the top of the rights protection agenda in the Constitution， but the problem now is that the freedom of online speech without constraints does not strengthen democracy， while instead it catalyzes information hegemony and eventually encroaches on democracy in the real world.

Conclusion

Under the long-term influence of multiple factors， American democracy has become mired in difficulties and is hard to reverse. Although it may alleviate short-term contradictions through limited reforms， in the long run， both its constitutional system and economic and social framework bear structural contradictions that cannot be neglected. The decline of American democracy is an inevitable result of its existing development model and a product of the continuous intensification of domestic social contradictions. Minor policy adjustments are unlikely to truly solve the accumulated problems.

The decline of American democracy has brought a strong impact on the normal operation of its domestic politics and economy. Due to the disappearance of the original political consensus， the struggle between the two parties has constantly exceeded historical limits. Politicians are bent on seeking additional benefits by further exploiting loopholes in the system， resulting in the near disappearance of the gray areas that could effectively buffer extreme behaviors in the United States. The regulatory role of the constitutional system in the normal operation of politics and economy has gradually weakened， administrative and legislative efficiency has continued to decline， the fairness of the judiciary has become a laughingstock， political violence has intensified， and public disappointment with the political system is clear. More and more people believe that the country is on the wrong track.

The decline of American democracy has also generated obvious international effects. The value of its “beacon of democracy” branding has sharply declined， and the “shining city upon a hill” has gradually lost its luster. The appeal of the American democratic system is no longer what it used to be. At the same time， the trend of de-democratization within the United States has also radiated the effects of domestic chaos to the outside world， triggering more political chaos， economic distortions， and social unrest. The international community has increasingly turned its attention to the governance concepts held by emerging economies， and a more diversified and future-oriented new international political system is gradually emerging.

——————————————

Liu Weidong is Research Fellow， Institute of American Studies， Chinese Academy of Social Sciences