Simply put, democracy as a system of government is in global decline.

This isn’t news. Freedom House has reported that over the last ten years the number of countries with functioning democratic institutions has contracted.

One only need look at the news over the past few months to see this trend. In June – Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte launched a war on drugs, which has left 1,900 dead, and the rule of law in the Philippines, similarly bloodied. In July, a coup in Turkey precipitated President Erdogan’s emergency powers, which he used to detain indefinitely, without charge, thousands of political opponents. In August, Thai constitutional change cemented the military Junta’s hold on government.

What’s behind this trend?

One argument is that this trend results from a failure on the part of the U.S., and its allies, to execute their duty in projecting democratic principles globally.

Assuming the U.S. and its allies – specifically the established democracies such as the U.K., Australia, France etc. – even have a duty to promote democracy, it’s doubtful whether they have the capability to effectively do so. Not necessarily because of international dynamics, but more because of internal factors taking place within these established democracies.

The reality is, electorates in these countries are deeply cynical of the value of their own democratic systems. In the U.S. public opinion of Congress is at historic lows. In Australia, polls done by the Lowy Institute reveal the “surprising ambivalence” of Australians toward democracy; support for it as a preferable system of government dropped 4% in 2015-2016.  The French election, due in April 2017, has been described as a contest of “who do you hate the least?” And Chinese state media, although not exactly balanced, was perhaps onto something when it said that Britons were “showing a losing mind-set” following the BREXIT referendum.  The Brits can at least take comfort in the fact they’re obviously not alone in their pessimism.

Nowhere is the cynicism of these electorates more apparent, than in their toxic forms of public debate. BREXIT is a good example. The referendum was a serious issue, deserving serious discourse. Instead, it was largely decided on spurious claims about immigration and continental control. In the U.S, legitimate dissatisfaction surrounding issues such as failing manufacturing and stagnating real wages, has been hijacked by the Trump campaign, using shallow sound bites; “crooked Hillary!”, “Build that wall!”

Political discourse in the U.K. and U.S., though shaped by different factors, is similarly toxic; public debate is no longer a contest of ideas, but a cacophony of voices, meaninglessly talking over one another.

In Australia, public debate isn’t so much overwhelmingly belligerent, as it is underwhelming and banal. A 2014 ANU study, found that 43% of Australians thought it mattered little which party was in power. Given the lacklustre performance of both major parties in the 2016 election, it’s doubtful that this statistic has improved.

The fact is, policy makers in Australia, the U.K., the U.S. and others, couldn’t project democratic ideals even if they had a duty to, even if they wanted to. Their respective electorates are themselves cynical about democracy – a symptom and a cause of ultimately unhealthy forms of public debate.

How can the established democracies carry the torch of democratic ideals, when we ourselves seem so unimpressed by its light?

Harrison Howard is studying a Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Arts (Politics and International Relations) at Macquarie University. Harrison recently completed summer school at the London School of Economics, and has worked with World Vision and other NGO’s. Harrison has been heavily involved in extra-curricular activities at Macquarie University, including the Politics society, Student Representative Council and has written for University-affiliated publications. He also has a strong interest in Middle-east politics and security.