Muslim World Report

Democracy's Paradox: The Rise of Militarism in Democratic States

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 20, 2025 9:03 AM | 8 min read | 1618 words

TL;DR: Democratic nations are increasingly gravitating towards militarism amid systemic crises, driven by political polarization, erosion of democratic norms, and the rise of authoritarianism. This post explores the implications of these trends and advocates for a global movement towards rational discourse and evidence-based policymaking to restore democratic values.

The Decline of Democratic Solutions Amidst Global Crisis

As we navigate the complexities of 2025, the world faces a multifaceted crisis that extends far beyond specific wars or localized conflicts. This crisis is characterized by a systemic failure to address critical global issues—an erosion exacerbated by:

  • Political incompetence
  • Rampant misinformation
  • A troubling rejection of empirical evidence and rational discourse

The deterioration of democratic norms and institutions in key nations threatens not only their stability but also the precarious global order itself. From the relentless violence in Gaza and ongoing humanitarian crises in Sudan to rising tensions between major powers like the United States and China, the ramifications are dire (Dalton, 2005; Howe, 2017).

Political Polarization and the Erosion of Democratic Norms

In the United States, the political landscape has become increasingly polarized, with leaders prioritizing partisan gain over essential tenets of democratic governance and international cooperation. This trajectory breeds apathy toward humanitarian crises, evidenced by:

  • Lack of substantial action regarding genocides and ethnic cleansing in regions like Gaza
  • Global outrage often eclipsed by geopolitical interests (Lieberman et al., 2018; Diamond, 2022)

The failure to learn from historical mistakes and confront imminent threats—whether through climate action, economic equity, or peaceful conflict resolution—heights the risk of catastrophic outcomes, including a potential escalation into another world war, driven by a misguided association of democracy with militarism and aggressive foreign policy (Issenberg et al., 2008; D’Anieri, 2011).

Moreover, the paradox of democracy manifests historically, where nations engaging in democratic practices increasingly resort to militarism. This pattern is evident in examples like:

  • Post-revolutionary France
  • Ancient Athens
  • Modern-day Israel (Gavin Rau et al., 2024)

As the integrity of democratic institutions weakens, profound questions about the viability of democratic governance arise. At this critical juncture, a cultural shift back towards rational discourse, respect for scientific inquiry, and a robust commitment to democratic processes is imperative (Giddens, 1986; Appadurai, 1990). Only through these means can we hope to navigate the chaotic landscape currently defining our global reality.

What If: Major Power Military Engagement in the Middle East

The prospect of major powers, particularly the United States, engaging militarily in the Middle East is fraught with profound implications.

Potential Outcomes of U.S. Intervention:

  • Destabilization rather than resolution of conflicts
  • Escalation of violence due to sectarian strife and geopolitical rivalries
  • Draw in nations and non-state actors, reinforcing cycles of conflict (Iwuoha, 2019; Meléndez & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2021)

This shift in military dynamics could realign global alliances, compelling countries like Russia and China to support their regional allies. U.S. military involvement might intensify a proxy conflict along ideological lines, leading to unintended global consequences. For nations already grappling with internal strife, such as Iraq and Syria, this could reignite civil wars, further exacerbating humanitarian crises and population displacements (Montgomery, 2014). Domestically, military engagement would likely polarize the U.S. populace even more, igniting debates about interventionism and the ethics of warfare.

The implications of eroding democratic norms within the U.S. cannot be overstated. Should this trend continue unchecked, the consequences will be grave—not just for Americans but for the global community. The U.S., historically a beacon for democratic governance, may find its decline emboldening authoritarian regimes and fueling narratives that justify repression in countries striving for democratic reforms (Chestnut Greitens, 2020; Howe, 2017).

The Erosion of Democratic Norms: Consequences and What If Scenarios

The ramifications of eroding democratic norms extend beyond the immediate political landscape. Considerations include:

  • Isolation of the United States as allies question its commitment to democratic ideals
  • Empowerment of authoritarian regimes worldwide to suppress dissent

If civil liberties continue to erode, American citizens may experience a significant decline in their ability to express dissent or advocate for political change. What if this environment leads to widespread disillusionment among voters? The breakdown in trust between the populace and governing institutions could pave the way for populist leaders favoring authoritarian approaches over collaborative governance.

The U.S. has often acted as a global champion for human rights and democratic governance; a retreat from these principles could weaken international human rights frameworks. Disengagement from international treaties supporting democracy and human rights might set a dangerous precedent, leading other nations to follow suit. The possible ramifications include a global regression toward authoritarianism, as democratic leaders become increasingly reluctant to confront their less democratic counterparts.

A Global Movement for Rational Discourse: A Potential Path Forward

Despite these challenges, a potential avenue for change exists in a global movement advocating for rational discourse and evidence-based policymaking. What if such a movement gains significant traction internationally? This could mean:

  • Prioritizing scientific reasoning in addressing existential threats like climate change and economic inequality (Kneuer, 2021; Garris et al., 2002)
  • Fostering international collaboration, with global leaders uniting around shared objectives

The emphasis on rational discourse would counter divisive narratives, allowing for constructive dialogue among diverse political cultures. It could lead to innovative policies addressing pressing issues like poverty, healthcare access, and educational equity.

If this global movement towards critical thinking materializes, it could rejuvenate democratic institutions and enable citizens to engage meaningfully in governance. What if these initiatives led to a renaissance of civic engagement? Empowering citizens through educational programs could counter misinformation and foster a culture of informed citizenship.

However, the emergence of such a movement faces significant challenges. What if entrenched interests resist these changes? Those profiting from chaos and misinformation may mount strong opposition to advocate for rationality, seeking to maintain the status quo. Nevertheless, a collective commitment to evidence-based policies may represent one of the most promising paths toward reversing troubling global trends (Byrne, 2020).

Strategic Maneuvers: Actions for All Players Involved

To address systemic crises plaguing global governance, a concerted strategic approach is essential. The involved players—national governments, civil society, international organizations, and grassroots movements—each have pivotal roles in fostering a more stable, democratic, and peaceful world.

  1. Governments must prioritize restoring and maintaining democratic norms, ensuring:
    • Protection of electoral integrity
    • Freedom of the press

Collaborative efforts among nations to share best practices in governance are essential for fostering stability. What if governments committed to transparent decision-making processes engaging citizens? This engagement could rebuild trust and strengthen democratic practices.

  1. International organizations, like the United Nations, must adopt proactive stances in addressing humanitarian crises. What if these entities championed intervention in cases of genocide and ethnic cleansing, facilitating dialogue between conflicting parties? Enhanced cooperation could mitigate conflicts before escalation.

  2. Civil society must foster a culture emphasizing rational discourse and critical thinking. Advocacy groups can mobilize public opinion and push for accountability in governance. What if grassroots movements advocated for ethical leadership centered on community needs over partisan interests? A rise in ethical considerations could redefine the leader-constituent relationship.

Grassroots movements can challenge entrenched interests by applying pressure on political leaders to act ethically. What if they organized communities around shared values, advocating for justice and equality? Mobilizing citizens could promote a renewed commitment to democratic principles.

Amid rising authoritarianism and militarism, a renewed commitment to foundational democratic principles must take precedence. The existential challenges we face require innovative solutions and a collective effort. What if, through intentional and strategic actions, society could contribute to reversing democracy’s decline and foster a culture of cooperation and understanding?

Conclusion

As the world stands at this critical juncture, the challenges we face demand an urgent reassessment of our approaches to governance, international relations, and civic engagement. The interplay of political dynamics within the U.S. and globally underscores the need for all stakeholders to act proactively in restoring democratic norms and pushing back against the rising tide of authoritarianism. Recognizing the power of collective action is essential for shaping the future we desire for generations to come.

References

  • Byrne, G. (2020). Climate change denial as far-right politics: How abandonment of scientific method paved the way for Trump. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 13(1), 53-67.
  • Chestnut Greitens, S. (2020). Surveillance, Security, and Liberal Democracy in the Post-COVID World. International Organization, 74(1), 1-27.
  • Dalton, R. J. (2005). The Social Transformation of Trust in Government. International Review of Sociology, 15(1), 5-25.
  • Dede, C. (2009). Immersive Interfaces for Engagement and Learning. Science, 323(5910), 66-69.
  • Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., & Iyengar, S. (2023). Does Affective Polarization Contribute to Democratic Backsliding in America?. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 705(1), 194-211.
  • Gavin Rau, E., McIvor, D. W., & Schlosser, J. A. (2019). Democratic Theory When Democracy Is Fugitive. Democratic Theory, 6(2), 1-23.
  • Giddens, A. (1986). The Nation-State and Violence. Capital & Class, 10(2), 7-8.
  • Howe, P. D. (2017). Eroding Norms and Democratic Deconsolidation. Journal of Democracy, 28(4), 77-91.
  • Issenberg, S. B., McGaghie, W. C., & Laskey, K. B. (2008). Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: A BEME systematic review. Medical Teacher, 30(5), 477-487.
  • Iwuoha, V. C. (2019). Clash of counterterrorism-assistance-seeking states and their superpower sponsors: Implications on the war against Boko Haram. African Security Review, 28(4), 325-339.
  • Kneuer, M. (2021). Unraveling democratic erosion: who drives the slow death of democracy, and how?. Democratization, 28(7), 1554-1576.
  • Lieberman, R. C., Mettler, S., Pepinsky, T. B., Roberts, K. M., & Valelly, R. M. (2018). The Trump Presidency and American Democracy: A Historical and Comparative Analysis. Perspectives on Politics, 16(1), 19-37.
  • Montgomery, E. B. (2014). Contested Primacy in the Western Pacific: China’s Rise and the Future of U.S. Power Projection. International Security, 38(4), 135-166.
  • Treisman, D. (2023). How Great is the Current Danger to Democracy? Assessing the Risk With Historical Data. Comparative Political Studies, 56(1), 20-49.
← Prev Next →