Have Western democracies become fatally ungovernable?

As British Prime Minister Keir Starmer battles for political survival following a damaging set of election results earlier this month, what increasingly appears to be a rearguard action to save his premiership raises a more profound question: have the UK and other Western democracies become so fragmented that they are no longer governable?

In the post-Cold War years of the 1990s and the decade that followed, there was a strong sense across the West that liberal democracies had achieved an ideal balance of security, prosperity and freedom, shared through cooperation, fueled by the triumph of the free market economy and accelerated by globalization. As technology developed, interaction across the globe became faster and more frequent, creating the illusion that countries within this system had discovered an unbeatable formula that could only go from strength to strength. The backlash that eventually followed was largely unforeseen, but probably inevitable.

This relatively short era of optimism rested on the comforting belief that humanity progresses in a linear fashion and can leave even its darkest periods behind to emerge as a more enlightened version of itself. Yet hundreds, if not thousands, of years of fragmentation and conflict, of emphasizing what separates us rather than what unites us, have repeatedly led to war and instability, both domestically and internationally. Why, then, would rational people choose conflict over cooperation or fail to settle differences peacefully by recognizing the humanity and good intentions in one another?

There might not be a convincing answer to this beyond the empirical evidence that history repeatedly demonstrates that belief in continuous progress is, at best, only partially correct. Time and again, periods that appear to herald a new dawn of stability and harmony eventually collapse into renewed discord and confrontation. The 18th-century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel argued that history advances through a “dialectic” process of conflict and contradiction, not in a straight line of progress but through a spiraling struggle between opposing ideas.

Ultimately, periods of profound change always produce winners and losers. The winners often present the prevailing order as the ultimate stage of human development and seek to preserve an illusory status quo, while those left behind search for ways to express their frustration. In democracies, the ballot box becomes a tool both for constructive change and, increasingly, for venting discontent, often existing simultaneously in some unexplained “harmony.” 

Increasingly, elections across Western democracies produce fragmented results and unstable governments.

Yossi Mekelberg

Much of the belief in linear progress also rests on assumptions about human rationality. It overlooks the fact that our reactions to change are often emotional as much as rational and that people are not always altruistic or willing to sacrifice self-interest for the greater good. Nor does it fully account for the appeal of short-term gratification over long-term, sustainable solutions that require patience and sacrifice.

Populists have learned to exploit these human tendencies; some would argue frailties. They relentlessly manipulate fears and hope, expectations and disappointments, even love and hatred, to gain political advantage. Populism itself is not new. However, globalization, through the integration of economies, technological advances, mass communication and the movements of people, has accelerated change dramatically and, with it, increased human interaction, which also results in friction.

While many have benefited from this transformation, others have been left behind, facing insecurity in employment, declining living standards and diminished dignity for themselves and their families. These are the cracks through which modern populists enter, cynically exploiting grievances to gain power, often by driving wedges between communities and aligning themselves with majority sentiment in order to secure support.

Increasingly, elections across Western democracies produce fragmented results and unstable governments. Traditional center-left and center-right parties, once dominant, are in constant retreat, challenged by populist movements from both the right and the left. The only way to convincingly expose populists for what they are is to allow them to govern. Yet this is often a dangerous and costly experiment.

It is often argued that legislatures without an overall majority are not necessarily harmful to democracy. Such systems can encourage broader representation, while coalition-building narrows political differences within the executive branch, where decisions are ultimately made for the duration of a parliamentary term. There is considerable merit in this argument. Yet its effectiveness is diminishing, leading to politics characterized by electioneering even when there are to be no elections for a long while.

Without dismissing the importance of adversarial, though constructive, debate among elected representatives, modern politics increasingly revolves around scoring cheap points. Many parliamentarians now rise through political systems with little significant real-world experience, yet considerable skill in advancing arguments, even when those arguments are poorly developed or weakly supported by evidence. 

Governments are increasingly expected to solve complex problems instantly and without sacrifice from citizens.

Yossi Mekelberg

Social media has intensified this trend. Images and punchlines often matter more than carefully reasoned arguments or data-driven, substantiated analysis. As a result, a new type of politician can rise rapidly beyond the limits of their competence: highly effective at delivering persuasive messages to millions of people on TikTok or Instagram, yet lacking meaningful solutions to the increasingly complex problems governments face.

The business of government is among the most demanding responsibilities anyone can undertake. It requires vision, competence, moral clarity, leadership, determination and often resilience under immense pressure. Charisma and personality can help, but they are no substitute for substance, commitment to public service and responsibility.

Nevertheless, politicians alone cannot bear all the blame. Although they are the individuals elected to guide societies through turbulent and uncertain times, the wider public must also accept a share of responsibility. A culture of short-termism, the mentality of “wanting it and wanting it all now,” has become deeply embedded in modern societies. Consumerism is perhaps its clearest manifestation but the same mentality also shapes political expectations, as governments are increasingly unrealistically expected to solve complex problems instantly and without cost or sacrifice from citizens.

At the same time, social media moguls, driven by vested interests while presenting themselves as defenders of free speech, often fail to curb hate speech or the spread of blatant falsehoods, thereby representing, in some ways, a reversal of Enlightenment ideals.

Education systems must also adapt. Greater emphasis should be placed on critical thinking and digital literacy, not as replacements for human interaction in classrooms but as complements to it. The same holds true for sections of the written and broadcast media, especially those prioritizing sensationalism over rigorous reporting and analysis.

We are all in the same boat and it is unstable. This instability exists even before the full disruptive potential of artificial intelligence has been unleashed. Western liberal democracies are at an inflection point. They can either confront and reverse these trends by restoring a political culture that is inclusive, evidence-based and grounded in liberal democratic values or risk the erosion of the system itself, while the majority of us ultimately pay the price.

• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House.

X: @YMekelberg