Susan Stokes: "There will be a blue wave in the 'midterms' that will evidence the failure of Trump"

BarcelonaThe American political scientist Susan Stokes explores in the book The Regressors: Leaders Who Erode Their Own Democracies (Galaxia Gutenberg) the causes behind the democratic backsliding that the world is experiencing in the 21st century. She points to economic inequalities as one of the key factors and describes the process followed by leaders of different countries and ideologies to dismantle the democratic system from within. We talk about it in a conversation in Barcelona, where she has participated in a debate at the CCCB.

Until a few decades ago, the main threat to democracy was a military coup. Now, slower and more diffuse processes of democratic erosion are taking place. You speak of regressive leaders. How are they defined?

— They are presidents or prime ministers who come to power through a conventional and democratic election process and who begin to undermine democratic institutions: the press, the courts, the bureaucracy, the civil service, social organizations... to greatly increase their power. Some end up being totally authoritarian. Venezuela entered a process of democratic erosion with Chávez, and it continued with Maduro, and now it is a dictatorship. Elections no longer serve to decide who will govern.

Does this gradual process make it harder for people to notice? Which elements should we react to?

— Yes, it is very difficult to know what is happening. First, the leader speaks very badly of the institutions. He says that the press is the enemy of the people, that the judges are all corrupt, that the public administration is full of partisans or incompetents or corrupt people. And this is to reduce the level of people's trust in these institutions and then, to intervene in them. The authority that organizes the elections does not work well, so it must be reformed. This can start as something rhetorical, then it becomes action. Imposing censorship on the press, having the rich friends of the head of government buy the newspapers and change their nature, making reforms in the judiciary to put judges more aligned with the president... These are already symptoms that democracy is eroding.

One of the questions that the book aims to answer is: why now?

— In very general terms, it is a product of economic changes. The nineties were a time of globalization, of the opening of Global North economies and of changes in the patterns of where products were produced, and this caused an increase in inequality. This produced a situation that allowed politicians to emerge who could take advantage of the polarization, of the people's lack of trust, to impose a system in which they would gain much more power.

What part of the responsibility do the traditional parties have?

— Especially in Global North countries, center-left parties, such as Social Democracy in Europe and the Democratic Party in the United States, went from being a representative of the working class to trying to increase their voter base with middle-class, urban, university-educated, socially liberal people. And this diluted their identity as working-class parties. This caused a loss of connection with these voters, which later opened the doors to nationalist right-wing parties, which have said: "We are truly your representatives and we know the problems you suffer, and the immigrants are to blame." I think it is a lesson that is being learned, at least in the United States, where a shift by the Democratic Party is seen, an attempt to win back the working class, especially the white one. In the USA, this narrative is easier because Trump has been a fake populist. His discourse is: "There is an elite that does not represent us," but his policies have been traditionally Republican: cutting taxes, cutting services, cutting health care... And I think this now gives an advantage to the Democratic Party.

For many years, in Europe, there has been an attempt to curb the far-right with the cordon sanitaire. Do you believe it is a good strategy?

— I believe that it is indeed a good policy. For me, it is much more feasible than the alternative: that these parties cannot participate, that they be considered illegal. Although I have some ambivalence... For example, in Germany, if the AfD violates laws, letting it participate in elections without complying with the laws means breaking the rule of law, and that, obviously, is negative. But when they are very popular parties, it is difficult to exclude them. It would be a very big risk not to let them participate, because it would frustrate many people. I think the cordon sanitaire is a much better option. That a traditional right-wing party rejects any alliance with these parties seems to me a good position. Now, when it is a situation of all parties against another, it can also seem, to its voters, an obstacle agreed upon by the powers and the elite to exclude them.

But if their support continues to grow, there comes a moment when the cordon sanitaire is no longer possible. At this point, is the only option for them to govern?

— The fact of allowing them to govern also has positive aspects. When they come to power, they do some things that people like and others that they do not. They probably cannot fulfill all their promises. And they will end up losing power. It is a way of taming them. Although, of course, it can be very risky because they can do a lot of harm.

Do you believe that the US midterm elections could be a turning point in democratic erosion? Is there a real risk that Trump will not accept the result?

— It is possible. One of the things that could happen is that the Democrats win and that the current Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, does not accept some of the congressmen who have won, using the argument of electoral fraud, in an attempt to maintain Republican control. It would be a scandal of great proportions, especially if the margin is very large. But if it is tighter, we shall see. In any case, Trump will pressure him to make this type of move, and Johnson is not a man with much independence from Trump. It is not an inevitable scenario, not by a long shot. But what makes me think that this will not happen is that, in this situation, the justice system would prevent it and there would be a social explosion.

Trump is a figure with a lot of power who is causing global democracy to erode, with leaders who see him as a reference. If it ends up being shown that his government has failed, could there be a contrary effect and this trend be reversed?

— I hope so. And I hope that this affects not only the elite level, but also the voters. That the Argentine, Chilean, or wherever voter sees that the Trump administration is on a trajectory of failure, that it alerts people that this is not a good solution. And it is clear that the Trump administration is a failure: sky-high prices, an endless war that is getting worse and worse, with many repercussions in the Middle East... It is hard to deny it. And I think it is very likely that it will fall very dramatically in the elections. For me, the most likely thing is that there will be a blue wave now in November, and that will not be able to be denied.