DANIEL HANNAN: This year, a record number of people worldwide turned out to vote. Yet, paradoxically, democracy is in retreat. We MUST reverse this terrifying trend

Twenty twenty-four was the year of elections. More than 50 countries, representing a majority of the world’s population, went to the polls.

From Mexico to Mozambique, Moldova to Madagascar, Mauritius to Mongolia, an unprecedented 1.5 billion people marked bits of paper, pulled levers or otherwise registered their preferences.

It sounds uplifting. But the truth is, many of those elections were decorative, designed to dignify dictators and dishearten dissidents.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin, for example, was re-elected with a deliberately implausible 88 per cent of the vote, the sheer vastness of the number being a way to flaunt his power.

In Belarus each seat was won by a supporter of Alexander Lukashenko’s autocratic rule. In Syria, the Ba’ath party triumphed – as it has done in every election since 1963 – helped by the fact no independent parties are allowed.

Other elections were flagrantly stolen. Pakistan’s military-backed regime announced plans to bar Imran Khan’s party. And the authorities had to resort to ballot-stuffing to prevent pro-Khan independents from sweeping the board.

Venezuela’s ballot-rigging was so flagrant that the state initially reported a turnout of more than 100 per cent of eligible voters.

It is a paradox. More countries than ever are going through the motions, with manifestos, candidates, polling stations and returning officers. Yet actual democracy, in the sense of people being able to change their rulers through the ballot box, is in retreat.

Russian President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with Belarus’ President Alexander Lukashenko. Although a record number of people voted in 2024, democracy is in retreat, writes DANIEL HANNAN

Venezuela’s re-elected president Nicolas Maduro addressing the nation in Caracas following the election results in July

For those of us who grew up in the late 20th century, this is something of a shock. We had become used to representative government and the rule of law becoming more common.

The process was fitful, but the trend was clear. For nearly seven decades after 1945, more countries became free than the reverse. Sometimes the dictators would fall singly; sometimes, as at the 1990 dissolution of the Soviet bloc, in a rush. And naturally there were some reversals.

But the direction of travel was clear. Personal freedom and the rule of law were becoming more widespread.

Not any more. Numerous think-tanks and institutes monitor the state of global democracy and, although they all use slightly different measures, they all find the same thing.

At some point about 15 years ago, the move towards liberty stalled and began to go into reverse. They all also find that things have got worse since the pandemic.

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) records that, last year, 46 per cent of countries saw a decline in the rule of law and democratic norms, while 24 per cent have seen an increase.

The Economist Intelligence Unit states: ‘Less than 8 per cent of the world’s population live in a full democracy, while almost 40 per cent live under authoritarian rule – a share that has been creeping up in recent years.’

Freedom House agrees. ‘Political rights and civil liberties were diminished in 52 countries, while only 21 countries made improvements.’

Even among established democracies, we see voters becoming impatient, irritated and intolerant. Candidates who are honest about the challenges their countries face are trounced by those who pretend everything can be solved by squeezing more money out of the top one per cent, or banks, or energy companies, or foreign firms through tariffs.

Across the democratic world, governing parties are being turfed out. Each election is different, of course, but the common theme is an unwillingness to accept there is less money than before, especially after lockdown.

Supporters of Imran Khan’s party protest against elections held in Pakistan in February, amid allegations of vote rigging

Donald Trump’s victory is a measure of how ready voters are to clobber the political class with any weapon

Two democratic leaders were sly enough to hold elections at the height of the pandemic, when restrictions were still popular. Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand and Justin Trudeau in Canada were duly re-elected.

But when the bills came in, the mood changed, and incumbents were sent packing. Ardern stood aside to avoid a hammering in 2023, and Trudeau looks to be in his last painful weeks.

Incumbents have likewise been clobbered across Europe, from Portugal to Lithuania. France has turned to extreme parties of Left and Right and, in Germany, the single most popular candidate for Chancellor is from the Putinite AfD.

In this sense, the British and US elections were remarkably unremarkable. Their governments were blamed, as all incumbents were, for the price and tax rises brought by lockdowns their voters had demanded.

In another sense, though, both were extraordinary. We are all wise after the event, subject to what psychologists call ‘hindsight bias’. But the fact that the United States chose to elect a convicted felon who had refused to accept his previous election defeat is both stunning and revealing.

Donald Trump’s victory is a measure of how ready voters are to clobber the political class with any weapon. Ask Republicans in 2015 whether it would be fine to pay off a porn star and then lie about it provided there was no violation of campaign finance reform, and they’d stare at you incredulously. Now, they take it for granted.

In Britain, the two main parties got their lowest combined share of the vote in a century. The Conservatives – the oldest party in the world by far if we treat them as heirs to the Tory Party of the 17th and 18th centuries – secured their single lowest percentage of the vote in a General Election in three and a half centuries.

What is causing this disruption? What was it, from the start of the 2010s, that undermined so many of the old political certainties – and the parties that upheld them?

Was it the global financial crisis, which delegitimised the entire system in many people’s eyes? Was it mass immigration, which wrecked the sense of shared identity that allows strangers to trust one another?

Or was it the spread of social media and of smartphones, which have left us bored, gullible and angry?

This third option certainly fits the timeline. When the average time spent on a TikTok video is seven seconds, politicians who come clean about trade-offs are at a massive disadvantage.

It used to be possible to explain that, for example, rent controls would reduce supply and thus push up rents; or that a lower tax rate might encourage more economic activity and so boost revenue; or that protectionism reduces the funds consumers have to spend, and so harms the entire economy.

But, in our impatient, screen-addled age, few want to listen.

Are we doomed, then, to turn our backs on the property-based, liberal and democratic order that raised the human race to unprecedented levels of wealth and happiness?

In Canada, Pierre Poilievre (pictured) seems set to be the first Conservative prime minister on a straightforward platform of sound money, low taxes and deregulation

Not necessarily. Argentina’s chainsaw-wielding president, Javier Milei, has so far retained public support while decentralising powers.

In Canada, Pierre Poilievre seems set to be the first Conservative prime minister since Stephen Harper, campaigning straightforwardly on sound money, low taxes and deregulation.

And, to her credit, Kemi Badenoch chose him as the first foreign party leader to meet following her own election. That bodes well – if voters are still listening.

Are they? We shall find out in 2025.

• Lord Hannan is President of the Institute for Free Trade.