Democracy and Power in the Age of Uncertainty: A Roundtable Across Time

 

Democracy and Power in the Age of Uncertainty: A Roundtable Across Time

This is the report of an imaginary roundtable discussion about democracy, its present and future. This discussion between the three thinkers was moderated by this blog with the assistance of M365 Copilot. 

Introduction: Democracy at a Crossroads

Democracy, once heralded as the ultimate guarantor of freedom and stability, now faces a paradox. It is globally dominant yet deeply fragile. From populist waves to algorithmic governance, from climate crises to geopolitical fragmentation, the question is no longer whether democracy will prevail, but whether it can adapt without losing its soul.

To explore this dilemma, my blog convened an extraordinary fictitious roundtable: Plato (Greece, 4^th century BCE), the philosopher who first dissected democracy’s vulnerabilities; Yuval Noah Harari, historian and futurist born in Israel (1976); and Victor Ângelo (born 1949 in Portugal), a veteran diplomat, security strategist and opinion-maker. Their dialogue spans millennia, weaving ancient wisdom with contemporary urgency.

I. Plato: The Perils of Excess Liberty

Plato begins with a warning that echoes across centuries:

“Democracy arises from liberty, but liberty unrestrained breeds disorder. When citizens prize freedom above virtue, they elevate flatterers over guardians. In your age, I see democracies intoxicated by opinion, mistaking noise for wisdom.”

Plato’s critique is not nostalgia for aristocracy; it is a call for reasoned governance. For him, democracy’s Achilles’ heel lies in its susceptibility to demagoguery—a vulnerability magnified today by social media and populist rhetoric.

Plato refers then to a historical case study: Athens and the Fall of the Polis, an example he recommends we should keep in mind. In the 5th century BCE, Athens pioneered direct democracy, granting citizens unprecedented voice. Yet, this liberty bred volatility. Demagogues like Cleon exploited popular passions, leading to reckless decisions such as the Sicilian Expedition—a disaster that hastened Athens’ decline.

II. Harari: Power Beyond Politics

Harari shifts the lens from political theory to technological reality: “Plato feared the mob; today, we fear the algorithm. Power no longer resides solely in parliaments—it flows through data streams. Surveillance capitalism and AI shape desires before citizens even vote.” 

Harari further argues that information asymmetry—once the privilege of kings—is now the domain of tech giants. Democracies must reinvent themselves not only to regulate technology but to redefine freedom in an era where autonomy is algorithmically curated. He is concerned with the fragility of the institutions. And he adds that the Weimar Republic (1919–1933) offers a sobering lesson. Born from the ashes of empire, it embraced democratic ideals but lacked institutional resilience. Economic crises and propaganda eroded trust, paving the way for authoritarianism. Today’s democracies face a similar risk—not from hyperinflation, but from information disorder.

III. Ângelo: The Geopolitical Dimension

Victor Ângelo brings a practitioner’s perspective: “Democracy remains the most legitimate system, but legitimacy is under siege. Populism exploits fear; disinformation corrodes trust and promotes hatred. Meanwhile, global governance lags behind transnational threats—climate change, cyber warfare, international criminal cartels, pandemics.”

For Ângelo, the challenge is collective action. No democracy can safeguard itself alone when crises are borderless. He calls for alliances of values, anchored in human rights and the rule of law, to counter authoritarian resurgence and systemic shocks.

He reminds us of the post-Cold War optimism that has been replaced by pessimism and fear: "The 1990s were hailed as the “end of history” (Fukuyama, 1992), with liberal democracy seemingly triumphant. Yet, the unipolar moment bred complacency. Institutions like the UN and NATO struggled to adapt to asymmetric threats, while globalisation outpaced governance. The result: a vacuum exploited by authoritarian powers and non-state actors."

The participants discussed then some examples that show the pressures democracy is under. For instance, the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) represent pioneering efforts to regulate tech monopolies and curb disinformation. Yet enforcement remains uneven, and AI governance is still embryonic. It is also a matter that is seen differently by the Europeans and the US leaders and key digital entrepreneurs based in America. 

Still in the US, polarisation and election denialism have strained democratic norms. The January 6th Capitol attack underscored vulnerabilities in institutional resilience. Ângelo added that President Trump's decisions taken since the beginning of his second mandate have equally challenged the authority of key institutions that play a vital role in the power balance. Those decisions should be seen as serious threats to the existing Constitution-based democracy, to the democratic equilibrium and to the media, among others. 

Other situations were also mentioned. 

India: The world’s largest democracy faces challenges from majoritarian politics and restrictions on press freedom, raising questions about the balance between stability and pluralism. The Global South: Democracies in Africa and Latin America grapple with debt crises and climate shocks, which authoritarian actors exploit to undermine governance. And Thailand, which is an unavoidable case study: Since 1932, the country has fluctuated between civilian governments and authoritarian regimes, experiencing at least 13 coups. These recurring crises reflect deep structural tensions between popular movements advocating inclusive governance and a conservative establishment. The result is a “constitutional samsara”—a cycle of birth and death that illustrates the fragility but also the resistance of democratic systems.

The Moderator asked for actionable policy recommendations. 

The participants listed a number of actions that must be taken into account: Civic Education for the Digital Age; Embed critical thinking and media literacy in national curricula; Promote ethical AI awareness among citizens and leaders; Expand frameworks like the EU Digital Services Act to include algorithmic transparency; Establish multilateral bodies for AI governance; Protect the independence of the judiciaries and the media; Develop rapid-response mechanisms for election integrity and cyber threats; Create a Democracy Partnership Forum, within the UN System, for coordinated global action; Link trade agreements to democratic standards.

To conclude the roundtable, the Moderator stated that the discussion had underlined that democracy is not a static achievement; it is a perpetual task. As Plato reminds us, liberty without virtue decays into tyranny. Harari warns that adaptability is the price of survival. Ângelo underscores that global, truthful solidarity is democracy’s lifeline in a fractured world. 

Before closing the debate and thanking the three  participants, the Moderator raised a final question: What is the future of democracy? 

Plato responded that without wisdom, democracy decays into tyranny. Cultivate reason above passion.

For Harari, without adaptability, democracy becomes obsolete. Embrace innovation, but guard against its perils.

Ângelo expressed the opinion that without solidarity, democracy weakens. Build trust—within societies and across nations.

Moderator: Thank you, gentlemen. The dialogue between past insight and present urgency reminds us: democracy is not a given; it is a never-ending task.

End of the imaginary roundtable. 

 

 

Vladimir Putin' s rhetoric about the Third World War

My opinion column of this week, published on 9 Feb in Diário de Notícias, Lisbon, in Portuguese language. This is an Artificial Intelligence translation on my text, thanks to Google Translate. 

Fight against foolishness or open the doors to populist danger?

Victor Angelo

The bellicose rhetoric of Vladimir Putin and his acolytes against NATO and the European Union has worsened as we approach the Russian presidential election, scheduled for March 15th to 17th. Experience teaches us that there are no reasons for surprises. It is a common tactic of dictatorships. The political narrative of these regimes seeks to convince voters of two deceptions: that the danger coming from the “external enemy”, so designated even though it is not in fact an enemy nor is it actually preparing for armed intervention, is now more serious and imminent; and that only the re-election of the absolute leader, with an overwhelming percentage of votes, will be able to prevent the enemy from launching the alleged aggression, invented by the dictator's lying propaganda. That's why we now hear talk in Moscow about the possibility of a third world war, a topic that is part of the frequent interventions of Putin's most famous court jester, the vice-president of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev.

In my opinion, Putin and his people do not want to enter into an open and widespread war with NATO. Rather, they intend to maintain control of political power in their country and transform the fierce aggression against Ukraine into what could be seen by the international community as a Russian military victory. In concrete terms, it is about seizing a significant part of Ukrainian territory and imposing an armistice entirely based on the political conditions defined by the Kremlin. In this way, they would reinforce their image as a great power in the international context. This is one of Putin's biggest concerns, showing an unbeatable Russia, in the champions league and capable of dictating its political will on the international stage. They would feel safer not only in relation to the West, but also in relation to China. The alliance with China is seen, by influential ideologues of Putin's ultranationalist regime, as a double-edged sword. Political friendship and cooperation with an extremely vast, populous neighbouring country with thousands of kilometres of common border hides, at the same time, the roots of a rivalry that could degenerate into a major conflict. This is why Russia needs to show military muscle, West and East.

On the European side, as I always insist, it would be a mistake to leave half-hearted aid to Ukraine in the legitimate defence of its sovereignty. The combination of economic, diplomatic, informational and military means is essential to convince the Kremlin to put an end to the invasion that began in 2014. Those who do not understand this fact and the need for an integrated strategy, which combines the four vectors mentioned in the previous sentence , is creating the conditions for, sooner or later, a series of oppressive governments to emerge in Europe, inspired by what is happening in Russia. We would then have a Europe that would be a very dangerous chessboard of replicas of Hungary.

It would also be a mistake not to prepare our geopolitical space for an armed confrontation with Russia. Whoever wants peace prepares for war, as it was said in ancient Rome. And although it can be recognized, as I do in this text, that Putin does not deep down want to start a war with our part of Europe, that possibility exists.

We need to speak frankly. We are, as has not been the case for a long time, in a complex and dangerous situation. We cannot accept either populism or a lack of ethics in international relations.

Populism lies, and only leads to confusion. It fails to understand what should be a priority in order to respond only to vote hunting and polls. Populist leaders, on the left and on the right, promise the impossible, spend resources on unsustainable policies, create debts that future generations will have to resolve and ignore that security and defence are indispensable for safeguarding democracy. They don't have the courage to tell the truth and explain that there are moments in history when sacrifices have to be made. Populists are narcissists and born dictators disguised as friends of the people.

Disregard for values prevents international alliances from functioning. Cooperation is replaced by chaos. Countries lose their credibility and principles are no longer the standards for resolving conflicts. The ethical references that have been built over decades are forgotten. The defenders of opportunism, which they call political realism, regain the stages they had lost.

  In the European case, international law is rightly defended when it comes to Ukraine. At the same time and in an incomprehensible way, ambiguity and laxity are expressed when it comes to the inhumanity that is occurring in Palestine. This foolishness makes us lose allies, which are very necessary, and has, in the long run, a very high cost.

President Macron's final leg

France has a new government. President Emmanuel Macron asked Edouard Philippe, who had been Prime Minister for the last three years, to resign and he did. Philippe had no other choice but to go, in view of the presidential system of power that prevails in France. The new PM, Jean Castex, is an experienced senior civil servant and a lightweight politician. He will serve the President as required. And the key point for Macron is to score a few deeds during the next two years, before the end of his current mandate. His concern is to be re-elected. He is playing the middle ground and the moderate right to try to achieve such goal. It is not going to be easy for him. He has created many negative reactions among the voters. At a time of crisis – and I am talking about the period before the pandemic – he was already perceived as too distant from the concerns of the more fragile segments of society. Macron’s image has become associated with privilege and elitism. Those are two bad labels in today’s context. I am afraid he will not be able to change such a perception. At this stage, I cannot bet on his re-election. But I wish his new government a smooth sailing.  

The crisis the democracy is in

This a time of great political polarisation, in many of the Western democracies. Matters are decided based on party positions, not on truth or on their merits. The exercise of democracy has become like a war. There are only winners and losers, when that’s the approach. There is no room for dialogue and compromise. That is a serious setback for democratic values. And a very fertile ground for the emergence of dictators and their twins, the populist fools. They just must be able to talk to the prejudices shared by many people, as they struggle to carry on with their daily lives.

Democracy and mass communication are major tools. They can be used to promote progress as they can be the instruments to get the most skilled morons into positions of power.

If you fail, try blackmail

When political bullying fails, the fellows try blackmail. The French call it “chantage”. That’s what some Brexit hardliners have been suggesting this weekend. They recommend that the Boris Johnson government sabotages the work of the EU institutions, if his deal proposal is not accepted and he is forced to ask for an extension. In their lunacy, they have even advised Boris Johnson to appoint Nigel “Crackpot” Farage as the British Commissioner in Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission. They see Farage as the Chief Disruptor.

All this is childish. And it is also amazing to see some sectors of the British Conservative Party falling so low. Their anti-European fanaticism makes them politically blind. It blocks their minds and impedes them from understanding that cooperation and mutual benefit are the only winning cards. Radical Conservatives just keep moving away from the traditional British common sense.

The populism is attacking our democracies

Populist leaders will do anything to keep power. They get to power through lies, manipulation of facts, verbal violence, intrigue and appeals to the most primary instincts of people. They keep using the same tactics once at the top of political food chain. They are then particularly dangerous as they have control over the institutional levers of authority and manage to acquire the support of those in the media that love to be obsequious to dictators and are ready to embark on the same disastrous demagogic train. All of them, leaders and their media acolytes, create a special type of enemy, what they call the elites. Everyone that opposes them, or comes up with different ideas, or talks about the respect for rules, institutions and separation of power, is tagged as an elite. The members of the elite are then called enemies of the people. We hear that accusation being thrown at judges, democratic politicians, professional journalists, competent civil servants, and so on.

All this is not really new. What is new and extremely worrisome is to see this type of unacceptable political behaviour taking ground in our traditionally open and democratic societies. The worm is now in our democratic apple. That’s a major development that needs to be combated with clarity of purpose and extremely effective communications. We must not be perceived as hesitating in front of the populists that are in charge or try to get to power. We must show leadership and moral strength.

A type of leadership

He knows about theatrics and smoke screens. He is also an expert on mirrors and emotional words, grandiloquence. That works in politics. But does it last? Not really, unless you add to it a continuous use of verbal brutality against your opponents and a strong dose of high-flying nationalism. Then, you have a true leader for the dunces.

I would do the same, I think, if I had a chance. It seems to pay off, isn’t it?

The extreme right and its tactics

The extreme right is like a hodgepodge of ideas. That explains part of its current strength.

 I have looked at their political programmes, statements and slogans. They bring together racist views and ultranationalist feelings with proposals they stole from the left or even from the far left. That is their way of casting the net wide and catching different categories of voters, from the very traditionalist type, the old style bourgeois, to the working class people, that are impressed by the radical promises the extreme right makes in terms of lower taxes, jobs for the citizens, tariffs at the borders, and so on, including the hate posture against international trade and supranational institutions.

They have an agenda that is far from being coherent. But they do not care about consistency and logical sets of proposals. They care about being as populist as they can.

It is not a protest posture, contrary to what many say. It is a deliberate assemblage of impossibilities to attract as many voters as they can. And if they can add to that a smart leader, a sweet talker, and tough discourse, they increase their chances of being supported.

That’s what we have seen today in some EU countries.

Estonia's turn to the far-right

We do not pay too much attention to politics in Estonia. The received wisdom, in Brussels and in the Western part of the EU, is that the country is doing well and springs as an example of e-government and the connected society.

But these days, there are some less tranquilising news coming from Tallinn. The Prime Minister’s Centre Party, a member of the centre-right European family, has now decided, against all pledges, to establish a governing alliance with the extremists on the far-right and offer them five Cabinet positions.

EKRE, that’s the name of the extremist party, is not good political company. Some of its banners are inspired by white supremacist ideas and old-time national-socialist nightmares. 

Estonia is following the same path Austria has already taken. And others. That is certainly not an encouraging development for the rest of the EU. It shows the populists keep gaining access to power in different corners of the Union. European leaders cannot remain silent when these types of coalitions are put in place.  

Undemocratic leadership

It’s a grave mistake to refer to autocrats as “illiberal leaders”. They are undemocratic political monsters that managed to get to positions of power because they manipulated their country’s public opinion and were able to ride on the most primary sentiments one can find in some nations that are experiencing deep crisis. The media and the academic circles must call those leaders what they are: demagogues, totalitarian, despot, or just dangerous populists.

Italy's rare birds

To recall one’s ambassador accredited to another State is a major move. A decision that is taken at the highest level of authority. It shows that there is a serious political tension between the governments concerned. France did it today. They recalled their Ambassador to Italy. I can’t recall any similar situation in Western Europe in the last seven decades. This is certainly not good either for both countries or the EU. It takes the EU to a new and unknown type of conflict. And, unfortunately, I do not see who could try to undertake the bridging between Emmanuel Macron and the radical populists that are in charge in Rome. It is also true that one cannot accept the kind of political hostility that is coming these days from Salvini and Di Maio. That must be said in very clear terms. They are an aberration that must be denounced.

On the Yellow Vests

The French Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) have now demonstrated every Saturday since mid-November. Yesterday it was their 12^th Saturday of mass rallies in Paris and other cities and towns of France. We cannot ignore the meaning and the political dimensions of such a movement. It must be better understood, first. Then, we should reflect about the response that should be provided.

I get the impression that both questions – understanding and responding – have not been fully considered.

Many words have been written about the grievances, but they do not explain the persistence of the street protests. Moreover, in winter, which is not the best season to be on the street and public squares. The analysis of the root causes calls for more objectivity and less ideological explanations.

The response the government has adopted is two-pronged: massive police presence during the manifestations, to prevent violence and looting; and the launching of a campaign of national dialogue, to look at issues of taxation, State organisation and political representativeness, as well as climate policies. But both lines of the response are being challenged. They have not convinced a good deal of those complaining, even among those who do not come to the streets on Saturday. 

The matter needs therefore a much more comprehensive assessment. It’s very much on the table.  

Populists are the enemy

As we move into this new year, a very challenging one in many fronts, let's not forget that fear is the currency of the populist leaders. To be successful and mobilise support, they create frightening news, exaggerate the problems, scare people out, and then, they present themselves as the only guarantors of a safer world, and the saviours that will take us there.

They create a fantasy and false narrative.

To fight such extremists, one must be able to demonstrate that the fears they have identified are not real or, if indeed there is a big issue, there is also a set of solutions that can be implemented to deal with it, without disturbing the established institutions and within a democratic and participatory set-up.

The challenge is therefore to address people's fears. And to win the narrative. That means a pragmatic approach must be followed, words should be clear and frank, and the combat against populists must be explained to everyone. We should talk about it all the time.

Populist leaders are manipulators and delusional. We should be able to show that to everyone.  

Poverty in the EU

Recent data shows that one in 10 European workers lives in a household that is statistically classified as poor. This is undoubtedly a high percentage of people. They work but their income is not enough to cover the full range of their basic needs. Very often, they are the only source of income in their nuclear family because they are single or divorced people with small children at their charge.

Childcare is an expensive line in the European families’ budgets. As such, if there is an entry point for any programme aiming at addressing poverty, this is an obvious one. Social systems must be geared towards providing better help to parents. Childcare and schooling, from a very early age up to the end of mandatory education, must be free – and some additional cash made available – for those parents that have low levels of income. That would be money well spent, both in terms of poverty reduction and the education of the new generations. It would also have the benefit of reducing the chances of poor people being tempted by populist politicians.

The leader simplifies and proposes a direction

We should not confuse simplification with populism and dogmatism. Simplification is a leadership task that helps to decode and elucidate complex issues. It’s also about giving direction to the necessary action.  

Turkey´s path

It´s worrisome to see the Turkish society being pushed towards more political radicalisation and deeper national divisions. It´s also a matter of great concern to watch its leadership moving away from accepted democratic principles. And taking the country in a direction that is contrary to greater proximity with the EU. 

Who is in charge?

The journalist from Macao asked me who in the EU is taking the lead in the fight against populist and xenophobic ideas. It was a genuine question with a serious touch of apprehension. For someone from afar two things seemed to be obvious: that there is a growing extremist political wave in Europe and that some personalities are for sure fully engaged in combatting such trend.

Well, for me, the first part is indeed obvious. The current radicalism combined with old fashioned nationalistic fantasies is a matter of concern, for sure. But the other dimension – who is taking the lead and proposing a more generous and democratic alternative that would make the European dream great again, as someone would say – the answer is not so easy. Actually, I am still looking for an answer.

Elections money

Elections will take place in a number of EU countries this year. And interestingly enough, we will see those countries actively borrowing in the capital markets. Italy´s government will be number one. They intend to issue public debt bonds totaling € 271 billion. That´s a lot of money, to be paid by future governments and the younger people. France will be number two. They should be in market to borrow over €200 billion. Even Germany, with general elections later in the year, will be looking for fresh money in the financial markets: €160 billion.

The point here is to spend a lot on public goodies to get the voters happy and ready to support those in place. It´s short term politics against long term liabilities.

Holidays and the change that is coming

Christmas 2016 is about to happen. It is therefore time to close this shop for a few days and enjoy the family.

But before closing for the holidays, I spent a bit of time thinking about the role of the elites as we get closer to the New Year and all the changes it will bring, in the US, in the UN, and also in some parts of the EU, in particular those more affected by the Brexit discussions, the nationalism extreme and the related immigration issues, security challenges, and by complex electoral processes. Elites will have to be very clear in their communication endeavours, very sensitive to the difficulties and anxiety many people face, and also very responsible when talking about the way forward. The interaction between the elites and the ordinary citizen will be a major issue as we get back from the holidays and start confronting the world of 2017.

The New Year this time will bring a real change.

In the meantime, let´s enjoy the break. Happy holidays, then.

Against populist ideas

It would be inexcusable to remain silent and not denouncing the populist proposals that might create serious political damage. Indeed, I see it as my duty to combat that kind of propaganda. And I also believe that such struggle has to be based on clear arguments and on very strong words. Ambiguity means nothing when fighting populism. It gives room for accusations of duplicity and weakness of character.  To be polite is no solution either. Populism must be ridiculed. It also needs to be destabilised.