A Democratic Divide
Published in Le Devoir
(Canada) on 5 March 2025
by Henri-Paul Normandin (link to original)
(Canada) on 5 March 2025
by Henri-Paul Normandin (link to original)
Translated from
by Reg Moss.
Edited by Patricia Simoni.
There was something surreal about hearing U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s lecturing Europeans on democracy at the February Munich Security Conference. His remarks denote an ideological divide between the U.S. and Europe — a divide with numerous consequences.
First, a reminder of Vance’s comments: “And what I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values — values shared with the United States of America.”
Those statements were made even as President Donald Trump proceeded with an unprecedented attack on the foundations of American democracy — a presidency that declares itself to be and acts as though it were above the law, bolstered by a servile U.S. Supreme Court; wields an abusive and unconstitutional use of power; instrumentalizes the justice system to protect allies and harass adversaries; attacks the press and freedom of expression; marginalizes legislative power; and is dismantling the government.
2 Camps in the West
What is taking shape is a Western world split into two camps, each asserting very different conceptions of democracy.
One, labeled a liberal democracy, emphasizes solid institutions, separation and balance of powers, accountability, the rule of law, and human rights and liberties that include the protection of minorities. This is the concept that the majority of Europeans and Canadians abide by.
The other, often labeled illiberal, is populist, with little respect for institutions, a pseudo-democracy akin to an autocracy. It emphasizes a strong executive authority that claims to represent the “people” and, as such, cannot be constrained or monitored by any other power, be it legislative or judicial, much less the press, and is inclined to manipulate or discredit electoral institutions if they do not serve it well. Moreover, it places an unbridled emphasis on freedom of expression to the point of normalizing hate speech.
Many will say this is a twisted notion of democracy. Yet, it is this notion that now prevails in Washington, as well as in certain European countries.
Of course, Trump did not invent illiberal democracy. Consider the case of Hungary, Turkey or Argentina. But what changes the game is that the American superpower now embraces this altered version of democracy.
The “leader of the free world” is no more.
Europe and Canada have lost a major ally in the advancement and defense of democracy and human rights on the global stage. Despite its imperfections and numerous blunders, the U.S. long served as a model with an ideological aura and the geopolitical tools to steer a liberal world.
Now, the U.S. can no longer be counted on to promote democracy as we know it and the defense of human rights, be it politically or by way of its resources, such as the programs sustained by the U. S. Agency for International Development.
But there is more.
There will be a collision on the international stage between Europe, Canada and other liberal democracies on one side, and the U.S. with certain other European countries on the other, with regard to democracy and human rights.
Force over Law
The Munich Conference offered a foretaste. One could glimpse confrontations within NATO, for example, on issues of freedom of expression, notably with regard to the media, social networks and even the rights of minorities.
To add to the picture, this is all part of a shakeup of the international order founded on the rule of law — an order constructed in large part under American leadership. It is quite clear that, for the U.S., international law is no longer relevant; it is only force that matters. Among the rights being undermined is that of the self-determination of peoples, considering American declarations on Greenland, Panama, Gaza, Ukraine and Canada.
It is hardly an exaggeration to emphasize that the U.S. finds itself closer to the axis of autocracies, with China and Russia, than to a coalition of democracies.
Democracies may even have to protect themselves from the U.S. Greenland, for example, recently had to reinforce its mechanisms to prevent foreign interference — from America. Canada is just as exposed.
Faced with this new reality, it will be imperative for proponents of democracy, governments and civil society alike, to develop new approaches, strategies and coalitions adapted to the circumstances for the defense and promotion of democracy, both at the national level and on the world stage.
First, a reminder of Vance’s comments: “And what I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values — values shared with the United States of America.”
Those statements were made even as President Donald Trump proceeded with an unprecedented attack on the foundations of American democracy — a presidency that declares itself to be and acts as though it were above the law, bolstered by a servile U.S. Supreme Court; wields an abusive and unconstitutional use of power; instrumentalizes the justice system to protect allies and harass adversaries; attacks the press and freedom of expression; marginalizes legislative power; and is dismantling the government.
2 Camps in the West
What is taking shape is a Western world split into two camps, each asserting very different conceptions of democracy.
One, labeled a liberal democracy, emphasizes solid institutions, separation and balance of powers, accountability, the rule of law, and human rights and liberties that include the protection of minorities. This is the concept that the majority of Europeans and Canadians abide by.
The other, often labeled illiberal, is populist, with little respect for institutions, a pseudo-democracy akin to an autocracy. It emphasizes a strong executive authority that claims to represent the “people” and, as such, cannot be constrained or monitored by any other power, be it legislative or judicial, much less the press, and is inclined to manipulate or discredit electoral institutions if they do not serve it well. Moreover, it places an unbridled emphasis on freedom of expression to the point of normalizing hate speech.
Many will say this is a twisted notion of democracy. Yet, it is this notion that now prevails in Washington, as well as in certain European countries.
Of course, Trump did not invent illiberal democracy. Consider the case of Hungary, Turkey or Argentina. But what changes the game is that the American superpower now embraces this altered version of democracy.
The “leader of the free world” is no more.
Europe and Canada have lost a major ally in the advancement and defense of democracy and human rights on the global stage. Despite its imperfections and numerous blunders, the U.S. long served as a model with an ideological aura and the geopolitical tools to steer a liberal world.
Now, the U.S. can no longer be counted on to promote democracy as we know it and the defense of human rights, be it politically or by way of its resources, such as the programs sustained by the U. S. Agency for International Development.
But there is more.
There will be a collision on the international stage between Europe, Canada and other liberal democracies on one side, and the U.S. with certain other European countries on the other, with regard to democracy and human rights.
Force over Law
The Munich Conference offered a foretaste. One could glimpse confrontations within NATO, for example, on issues of freedom of expression, notably with regard to the media, social networks and even the rights of minorities.
To add to the picture, this is all part of a shakeup of the international order founded on the rule of law — an order constructed in large part under American leadership. It is quite clear that, for the U.S., international law is no longer relevant; it is only force that matters. Among the rights being undermined is that of the self-determination of peoples, considering American declarations on Greenland, Panama, Gaza, Ukraine and Canada.
It is hardly an exaggeration to emphasize that the U.S. finds itself closer to the axis of autocracies, with China and Russia, than to a coalition of democracies.
Democracies may even have to protect themselves from the U.S. Greenland, for example, recently had to reinforce its mechanisms to prevent foreign interference — from America. Canada is just as exposed.
Faced with this new reality, it will be imperative for proponents of democracy, governments and civil society alike, to develop new approaches, strategies and coalitions adapted to the circumstances for the defense and promotion of democracy, both at the national level and on the world stage.
Previous article![]( "Trump Didn’t Use the ‘R-Word’, but That’s What Markets Fear")
Next article![]( "Alone from Here: Of the Trans-Atlantic West, Only Europe Remains")