here is an interesting article on this subject worth reading

After decades of globalisation, our political system has become obsolete – and spasms of resurgent nationalism are a sign of its irreversible decline. By Rana Dasgupta

argues that yes national level democracy is now not fit for purpose and we must go global

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta

comments?

Now that SPD vote gives Germany again new 'grand coalition' government, http://www.euronews.com/2018/03/04/spd-members-vote-for-coalition-with-merkel-s-conservatives-german-media, and USA as Russia and China function on fixed political systems, the world is set under a miserable status quo, which is imposed by pure financial interests. FR and Brexit is similar. The Democratic values are underestimated all over the globe at the scientific or social level, which means that the world is running on the currencies.

In a world, which is officially in deficit, the US budget deficit widened to USD 666 billion in the fiscal year 2017 from USD 586 billion in the previous fiscal year, means that the international economic-social system is running out of control. In such situation, personalities that serve the status quo and the financial interests of the oligarchs are the political puppets of current Democracies.

Consequently, not only Democracy is under siege but also the global society is under dissatisfaction and repositioning. Dissatisfaction with existing conditions seems to be a prerequisite for intentional social and political change. Democracy will remain the only political system, which drives human prosperity and social justice.

Dear Ludwine,

For the most part, Samuel Hungtingon's Third Wave of Democratization (1991) was founded upon a definition of democracy that can only be categorised as "electoral" and "formal". That is, to theorize a third wave of democratization, Huntington focused almost exclusively on the progressive electoral patterns developing across the world. That is, "free and fair elections". Nevertheless, as the case of Latin America demonstrated, so-called "free and fair elections" were insufficient in establishing an appropriate environment for the growth of democracy in the beyond-electoral sense of the term. So while most Latin American countries witnessed a tide of electoral democratization in the 1990s and at the turn of the century, their societies continue to live in an environment that lacks rule of law and some of the most basic human and civil rights.

I think the problem with this sort of Huntingtonian or Freedom House analyses of global democracy is that they fail, for the most part, to take into consideration chronic issues such as chronic unemployment, poverty, precariety, violence, corporate land-grabbing projects, etc. These are precisely the issues that alienate citizens from the process of democratization.

Regards,

I believe that democracy, some for of, is the inevitable end state, as populations become more educated and economies grow. Sooner or later, populations stop thinking like dependent children, unable to function on their own, and become more skeptical of their political so-called leaders. Honestly, I can't imagine how such an evolution would NOT occur, in due course. As people get up on their own two feet, one would expect that they notice whether this political leadership is helpful or detrimental, to their own wellbeing. For example, people become more aware of, and less tolerant of, government corruption. Politicians on the take.

Probably different causes for the "malaise" in different parts of the world. To me, the common denominator in many parts of the developed world is as simple as massive migrations. We keep seeing this alarmist drumbeat about nationalistic movements, but in fact, I think it has noting to do with pre-WWII Europe. We are not going back to populations that look for this "leader," to lead them by the hand. People are looking for governments to quit making matters worse. If people see conditions around them deteriorating, instead of improving, they naturally will start wanting to kick the bums out. They do not want to hear the same rhetoric they've been hearing for the past 50+ years, right? That would only work if they were seeing steady improvement, or at least, status quo.

Economic globalization, accompanied by innumerable conflicts throughout the developing world, have created more rapid changes, in many parts of the world, than populations can readily absorb. I think the root causes of this "democracy in siege" alarmism is no more complicated than that. Add to that that many academicians keep emphasizing how and why conditions are heading south, at least in the minds of many, with their "salad bowl instead of melting pot" analogies ("salad bowl" being another term for "balkanization"), and what's hard to get? You cannot expect people to celebrate what many perceive to be inevitable decline.