Taking stock of the health of democracy is a challenging and complex task. It carries the risk of being overly pessimistic in times when authoritarian regimes are being considered more efficient and stable. Nevertheless, overall, a rich and constructive picture emerged from discussions. Still, so many challenges remain, starting with the rather paradoxical fact that mature democracies are often the victims of their own success. Indeed, successful democracies regularly face the difficulty of having to confront problems at a national level that are actually global in origin, of an excess of citizen expectations that fail to be met and also of the failure of political parties and unions to provide their traditional intermediation.
Democratic systems have a growing identity problem linked partly with demographic trends (the case of the United States was pointed out) both domestically (i.e., the crisis of the white minority) and at international level, with the decline in the hegemony of dominant democracies. In brief, democracy is having to prove its ability to use its vast hallmark aptitude for continuous adaptation.
Europe – a solid example of a democratic system – is dealing with a series of new fragilities. Two wars underway just beyond its borders, and the resulting strategic question of security, are making the EU both vulnerable and marginal in terms of influence. In addition to that is the impact of the demographic crisis – which renders the question of human capital a decisive factor in Union competitiveness – and the loss of economic vigor associated mostly with the defects of a governance that no longer works.
What to do then? Two theories prevailed: on the one hand, the idea that it is vital for Europe to create an area of security that extends eastward since, in any case, relations with Russia will remain conflictual even after the war is over. This is the “all in at the same time” approach: i.e., a geopolitical solution that does not prioritize issues of merit. On the other hand, there is the idea that the European Union should meet its security and economic challenges with an institutional gradualism that permits the vertical integration of member state and European level authorities. This is a multi-level governance in which the European Commission and Parliament are allowed greater importance.
The old federalist route is considered passé in favor of a more modern and feasible European functionalism. Such a new Europe would be based, in particular, on strengthening the eurozone, which includes the ECB being the “lender of last resort”. On the economic front, some important forms of integration are still missing. These are no longer deferrable: first and foremost, services. Finally, it was noted that, with the warning of a possible second Chinese shock, tariffs are not the solution. After all, Europe, much more than the US, depends on an open market and cannot afford forms of autocracy, no matter how soft.
Discussion of the critical horizons of democracies intersected with an analysis of the technological, social, economic and political transformations taking place in the media. The world of information services is particularly impacted by artificial intelligence, of course. Such evolutions are changing both the media industry and more traditional journalism as well as democratic practices and the broader exercise of political participation.
What has begun is an “era of media inflation”. Big Tech companies are increasingly becoming de facto, if not de jure, political entities. These anomalous hybrid platform-editorialists end up being key players in national security strategies and practices, not to mention in defense cybernetics. This has triggered a radical anthropological change, especially in the newer generations. We have become avid consumers of digital applications and social media with all-new user styles as compared with the past.
New technologies may have created fresh opportunities and broader democracy in the world of data, with the generation and circulation of high-speed content on an unprecedented global scale. And yet, efficiency is not always a boon for citizens: technologies have also multiplied the risks of manipulation, falsification, standardization, discrimination and unfair competition.
In the end, the strategic goal remains that of restoring the values of integrity and quality to data. The many problems underscored – polarization, tribalization, manipulation, disinformation, monopolization – demand a strategic response that strikes a necessary (yet anything but easy) dynamic balance between regulatory restraint, political orientation and entrepreneurial and cultural innovation.