To what extent is democracy under strain and how does it need to evolve to adapt to contemporary challenges? That was the focus of an online discussion organized by the Democracy and Federalism Hub, the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, Democracy Without Borders, and others.
Bringing together professor of political science and jurist Doina Stratu-Strelet, whose work focuses on democratic consolidation, political resilience and digital governance, and political and social theorist Hanno Scholtz, known for his work on “civil democracy” and democratic efficacy, the event was an opportunity to hear their diagnoses of democracy’s current difficulties and possible paths for reform. The exchange touched on the question whether the nation-state remains the right “container” for democracy, whether current forms of representation have become outdated, and how participation and legitimacy might be renewed.
Stratu-Strelet presented her theory of “dynamic democracy” and argued that democracy should not be assessed merely by the presence of institutional features such as elections, parliaments, parties or bureaucracies. The more important issue, she said, is whether a political system actually performs democracy’s essential function by enabling meaningful citizen participation in public decision-making. In her view, many systems that appear democratic in form are no longer doing so in substance.
Democracy’s institutional forms need to fulfill a function: meaningful participation
She linked this problem to global interdependence, digital transformation and growing concentrations of power. Decisions affecting citizens’ lives, she argued, are increasingly made beyond the national level, while democratic legitimacy remains anchored there. That mismatch, in her account, lies at the heart of the current crisis. Her idea is not simply to shift authority upward, but to rethink democracy as a multi-level system spanning municipal, regional, national and supranational governance.
Scholtz approached the issue from the perspective of representation. He argued that traditional representative democracy was built for more homogeneous societies and has been undermined by decades of individualization. A single vote for one party or candidate, he suggested, no longer captures the complexity of citizens’ preferences and weakens what he called democratic efficacy, the sense that people have meaningful influence over political outcomes.
As another approach, Scholtz outlined his concept of “civil democracy.” He proposed more individualized forms of representation and participation that would allow citizens to rely not only on political parties but also on a wider range of civil society actors. This, he argued, could make democratic engagement more flexible while allowing citizens greater freedom to decide when they want to participate directly and when they prefer to be represented.
A single vote can no longer reflect citizens‘ preferences
Elaborating on whether the nation-state is still the right framework for democracy, Stratu-Strelet clearly said it is not, at least not on its own, because many of today’s most consequential decisions are no longer made at the national level. Scholtz agreed that the role of nation-states is diminishing, even if they will remain important for a long time, and argued that democracy must become better able to reflect citizen preferences across different levels of governance.
With regard to the global dimension of democracy, Stratu-Strelet, an associate of Democracy Without Borders, referred to proposals such as a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly as one way to strengthen democratic legitimacy beyond the nation-state. Scholtz likewise argued that new democratic practices could emerge at the global level, including through digital tools and stronger civil society mandates. Both suggested that democracy’s future may depend in part on its capacity to develop beyond inherited national structures.
Democracy needs to transcend the nation-state
Stratu-Strelet further argued that the question of whether international institutions can be made democratically legitimate requires confronting a deeper problem than institutional design alone. Such institutions were built within the same object-oriented paradigm as national democracies: define the components – member states, secretariats, voting procedures – assemble them, and assume legitimacy follows. What that old paradigm cannot generate is a traceable connection between the people affected by a decision and the process that produced it. According to Stratu-Strelet, an international institution becomes democratically legitimate only when it is designed from the outset around its function rather than around a set of predefined components. Elements are built to serve that function; those that fail to do so can be removed. The principle holds internationally as it does nationally: democracy is not defined by its institutional components, but by whether it fulfills its function.
The exchange made clear that while the two speakers differed in emphasis, both see democratic renewal as requiring more than the defense of existing institutions. Their shared premise was that democracy must adapt if it is to remain credible and effective under contemporary conditions.
