In recent times, democracy has become one of the least frequently invoked terms in public debates. The erosion of faith in democracy is now a widespread global phenomenon, and the current situation reflects the accumulation of a multidimensional process that cannot be reduced to a single cause. First and foremost, it has become evident that the dominant global economic model of recent decades has failed to sustainably deliver the prosperity it promised to broad segments of society. The rise in income and wealth inequalities, the steady erosion of the middle classes – particularly in the wake of recent technological transformations – and the fact that younger generations now face a more fragile future compared to previous ones have collectively undermined confidence in the capacity of democratic systems to produce justice. In such an environment, as people increasingly feel that elections do not meaningfully change their lives, democracy begins to be perceived as merely a procedural – and often manipulative – mechanism.
The crisis of representation is also deepening in the face of increasingly severe problems affecting large segments of society. As a result, the inability of politics and traditional institutions to adequately reflect the increasingly diverse demands of society continues to widen the gap between voters and their representatives. Politics is becoming confined to the narrow domain of a professional elite, reinforcing a growing sense of exclusion among the broader public. This disconnection manifests in many countries in similar ways, leading to fluctuations in voter behavior and a deepening distrust toward politics and institutions. For instance, a closer look at the debates within the European Union reveals a profound sense of disillusionment among societies toward political actors. Across continental Europe, there is a widespread perception that politicians are unable to address real societal problems, and the issue of representation is increasingly turning into a full-blown crisis. The drift of political preferences toward extreme ends in many countries can also be seen as a reflection of this underlying crisis experienced by societies. In these discussions, frequent references to the disconnect between the lived realities of European societies and the Brussels-centered bureaucracy point to growing unease regarding the political functioning of the bloc.
At the core of this deepening crisis lies the collapse of the middle classes in many countries. Large segments of society that once enjoyed a substantial share of economic prosperity are steadily slipping into lower economic positions, while inequalities in income distribution continue to widen. The persistence of this downward trajectory fosters a growing sense of hopelessness about the future, pushing societies toward political volatility, swinging from one extreme to another – yet the underlying problems remain unresolved. Young people, in particular, do not feel secure about their futures. While they remain in constant motion in search of better opportunities and improved living standards, the geographical scope of this mobility is increasingly narrowing. Moreover, aging populations in many societies are constraining economic growth and exerting a downward pressure on overall levels of prosperity, thereby reinforcing and entrenching these adverse conditions.
On the other hand, as the consequences of recent developments have become more visible, it has become increasingly evident how far removed from reality the West’s claim of exporting democracy through its interventions in the East has been. The experience of the past half-century, in particular, has significantly eroded the credibility of this claim, turning it into a reality that is no longer confined to narrow political debates but is clearly recognized by broad segments of societies worldwide. Although the rhetoric of promoting democracy functioned as a powerful source of legitimacy in the post-Cold War era, the inconsistencies between this discourse and the realities on the ground – as well as the new costs that emerged – have become far more visible. More importantly, in many of these interventions, the alignment or tension between the discourse of democracy and geopolitical interests has been clearly felt. The decisive role of factors such as energy security, regional power balances and strategic considerations has revealed that “values” have long served less as guiding principles and more as a rhetorical instrument subject to exploitation. This, in turn, has reinforced the perception – particularly in non-Western societies – that the West employs the language of democracy not as a universal principle, but as a selective and pragmatic tool. For instance, developments spanning from Afghanistan to Iraq, from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Gaza, and extending to Iran, where conflict continues, have made the underlying dynamics of these interventions much more apparent.
On the other hand, while values such as democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are presented as fundamental reference points in domestic politics, their open violation or selective application in foreign policy has also transformed public perceptions of the state and political elites within Western societies. If these values are truly universal, why can they be suspended abroad? Over time, this question has extended beyond foreign policy and has come to challenge the sincerity of domestic practices as well. In the West, media, academia and political institutions were long regarded as the custodians of these values. However, in the face of such evident contradictions in foreign policy, their silence – or attempts to justify these inconsistencies – has fueled growing doubts about their credibility. In particular, a significant rupture emerged with the Epstein files, further deepening skepticism toward the integrity and accountability of these institutions.
The Epstein files made visible not only the nature of political decision-making processes but also the extent to which the media, academia and elite networks surrounding these processes can operate in closed, protective and selective ways. The Epstein case brought to the forefront how a figure with extensive high-level connections could be shielded for years despite serious allegations of criminal misconduct. The web of relationships spanning finance, politics, academia and media reinforced, for many, the perception that the rule of law does not function equally for everyone. When combined with criticisms of double standards in foreign policy, this situation contributed to the formation of a broader pattern in the public imagination. According to this pattern, values remain at the level of rhetoric, while in practice, they are bent according to power relations. In this sense, the Epstein files reinforced – through a concrete domestic example – the distrust that had previously been voiced in relation to contradictions in foreign policy. As a result, people have become more inclined to believe that values are not applied consistently, not only toward others but also within their own systems.
At this point, as confidence in democracy weakens across many societies, it has become clear that the problem is not limited to internal economic or political crises. The inconsistencies displayed in foreign policy have further reinforced the perception that democracy is being used not as a coherent set of values, but as an instrument of power. As people increasingly come to believe that human rights are not principles applied equally to all, but rather a discourse adjusted according to the interests of certain actors, trust in both this concept and democracy itself has inevitably eroded. Therefore, the current crisis of democracy is not only a crisis of institutions, but also of the moral claim that legitimizes them. Without rebuilding this claim – without closing the gap between values and practice – it seems highly unlikely that democracy can regain a strong foundation of belief. In the past, the international order could at least claim, at the level of rhetoric, to rest upon a shared moral ground. Today, however, sufficient evidence has emerged to cast serious doubt on the validity of these claims.
In summary, the ongoing and overlapping crises of recent years have, quite understandably, strengthened the belief in many countries that “survival depends not on trusting others, but on relying on one’s own capacity.” This has accelerated trends such as increased defense spending, the pursuit of domestic production in critical technologies, efforts to reduce external dependence in energy and food security, and the restructuring of supply chains. Behind these developments lies not only heightened security concerns, but also a growing erosion of trust in international institutions. As a result, countries are adopting more cautious, interest-driven approaches. Alliances, in turn, are becoming more flexible, more temporary, and increasingly instrumental. Rather than remaining fixed within a single bloc, states are now able to form different partnerships across different domains – cooperating with one set of actors in security, another in economics, and yet another in technology. Consequently, countries are moving toward orientations that prioritize their own interests and security to a greater extent. These trends point to a new phase in which the binding force of shared human values has weakened, giving way to a more fragile, more transactional, and more fragmented international order.
