Rethinking democratic resilience amid polycrisis.

This World in 2050 (W2050) report presents and analyzes outcomes from collective intelligence exercises at the Future of Democracy Forum (FOD) on the eve of the 2024 NATO Leaders’ Summit (July 8). Participants were asked to identify contemporary challenges to democracy and categorize them on the basis of these questions:

  • Does this challenge arise from internal or external factors (or both)?
  • How severe an impact could this challenge have on democratic institutions?
  • How likely is that threat to be realized?
Read more

Our conversations about how to address the crisis in democracy often ignore our own assumptions and those of others, and that’s a big blind spot. The purpose of this collective intelligence exercise was to unpack those assumptions while considering novel perspectives from working group members. The purpose of this report is to map out the findings from the conversations and identify trends and relationships that were unexpected or striking. This is intended to open up how we think about our democratic institutions and the novel challenges facing our institutions today, so we might better seek novel, inclusive solutions.

The answers were mapped out visually, allowing participants and W2050 staff to infer relationships, trends, and different understandings of these challenges. 

Diversity was key to achieving meaningful outcomes, as diverse perspectives on common problems produce synthesized, unique ideas that spark innovation. To this end, participants worked in groups curated to ensure maximum diversity of professional experience, age, and background. Not only did this approach expose participants to perspectives they may not otherwise engage with, it also ensured that voices not often heard—from students to representatives of nascent democracies—to influence outcomes. This makes our outcomes unique, not coming from a particular kind of expert or from an organization with a particular remit. Our outcomes reflect this report’s purpose of opening up how we think about democracy and the challenges facing it, without advocating specific solutions.

How the report was made

Each group worked together to map their list of threats to democracy on a 2×2 chart. These charts were later collected and the results mapped together. W2050 analysts examined the synthesized map for thematic trends and clustering on different parts of the chart. Given the unique nature of how data was gathered this analysis was semi–structured and qualitative, with an aim of examining unexpected relationships and trends to generate high–level takeaways.

How to use this report

The chart is embedded on an online platform which allows dynamic zooming and navigation of a ‘virtual white board.’ The combined, fully mapped out chart is represented so that readers can examine our data points for themselves and infer groupings, patterns, and trends. Challenges are colored green for ‘internal’ challenges, and pink for ‘external’ challenges. The chart has a vertical and  horizontal axis. The horizontal axis represented how likely each group considered a given challenge to democratic institutions to be fully realized. The vertical axis represented how severe an impact that challenge could have, if fully realized. Challenges were coded by color—green for challenges arising from internal pressures and pink for challenges arising from external pressures. Each challenge was ‘headlined,’ meaning a short one–line description.

W2050 analysts identified four major thematic groupings, termed here ‘thematic clusters.’ These are indicated on the chart with colored circles, which have in turn been color coded to match analysis embedded on the main page, to the sides of the chart. There is also a legend for reader reference.  

Read about our methodology below.

Methodology

Each chart had a vertical and  horizontal axis. The horizontal axis represented how likely each group considered a given challenge to democratic institutions to be fully realized. The vertical axis represented how severe an impact that challenge could have, if fully realized. Challenges were coded by color—green for challenges arising from internal pressures and pink for challenges arising from external pressures. Each challenge was ‘headlined,’ meaning a short one–line description.

Each of these eight charts were then mapped on top of each other. 

W2050 analysts examined the synthesized map for thematic trends and clustering on different parts of the chart. Given the unique nature of how data was gathered this analysis was semi–structured and qualitative, with an aim of examining unexpected relationships and trends to generate high–level takeaways. The full combined chart of challenges is also provided, so that readers can examine it themselves.  

Each participant was invited to write a short commentary reflecting on their conversations at FOD or developing ideas on the future of democracy that were informed by those conversations. These are all provided to help the reader contextualize the chart.

Why a visual representation?

The format of this report is unique, relying largely on interactive visual tools to relay information. This format was chosen for two reasons. First, as reader taste changes more traditional reports have become less engaged with. Finding effective ways to distribute information of this type amid changing audience tastes and expectations is critical for the health of our democracies—given that a well–informed citizenry is a pillar of democracy.

Second, this report uses information which was gathered in a novel way—via a collective intelligence project in which participants discussed issues and came to a consensus on each data point later analyzed. This data is highly perspective, so data analysis accordingly required a qualitative approach. This report’s visual representation gives the reader access to the main data points used in this report in a way that allows for intuitive processing.

How information was gathered

Participants were divided into eight working groups of approximately eight individuals. Each group was curated to ensure maximum diversity of professional experience, age, and background.

Greater diversity in collective intelligence exercises ensures outputs have been considered from multiple, often novel, perspectives—leading to more holistic and sophisticated outputs. 

Participants were asked to individually prepare a list of what they consider to be challenges to our democratic institutions today. 

As a group, participants discussed the attributes of each challenge individually identified on three parameters:

  • Does this challenge arise from dynamics internal to our democratic institutions and societies, or does it arise from external forces?
  • What is the potential severity of the impact these challenges could have on our institutions?
  • What is the likelihood that these challenges will be fully realized as things stand today?

Each group then mapped out these challenges on a 2×2 chart. After all challenges were mapped, groups discussed any patterns, groupings, or trends they saw emerging. Notes on these conversations were shared with W2050 staff.

Analytical process

Given the novel nature of how the data for this report was gathered—and the collaborative nature of perspectives given—analysis of the chart and participant notes was qualitative, similar in style to documentary or narrative analysis. 

Following the completion of FOD, the fully filled out chart from all groups were mapped one on top the other.

Mapped out challenges were examined for patterns, groupings, or trends—W2050 analyst findings were then measured against those of each group.

Trends and patterns are discussed as ‘high–level takeaways’, with observations from the chart being considered alongside group notes, where applicable.

Groupings of thematically similar challenges were also identified and marked on the chart by colored graphics. These colors are matched to analysis, which is embedded on the main webpage on the sides of the chart.

High Level Takeaways & Trends

Can democracy deliver?

One of the most commonly cited threats to our democratic institutions is related to the fear that democracies are failing (or perceived to be failing) to meet the needs of the populace could erode institutions. There were differing views among participants about the legitimate responsibilities of democratic institutions. This suggests it may be inevitable that significant portions of our populations at least perceive that democratic institutions are failing them. 

Groups identified more internal challenges than external, but were more worried about external

Nearly a third of external threats were clustered in the highest ranking threat category. More than double the number of internal threats were identified, but fewer than a quarter of them were mapped to the highest ranking threat category.

Many ‘internal threats’ to democracy arise from failures in education

There were wide–ranging conversations about failures in education and the need for alternative literacies like civic literacy, societal literacy, and digital literacy to remedy our internal societal ills. This tracks with trends World in 2050 has observed in recent conversations around polycrisis challenges – with experts  across a variety of sectors emphasizing the importance of these more contemporary-facing ways of thinking about literacy.

The internal–external divide is complicated

Some challenges can be both. Consider misinformation and challenges like polarization exacerbated by misinformation. A lot of misinformation is produced by domestic interests pursuing their own ends. A lot also comes from external actors hostile to our democratic institutions. Yet our vulnerability in both cases comes from the same, internal, challenges. In many cases we identified clusters of internal and external challenges, wherein the internal challenges could best be described as internal dysfunctions which heightened vulnerability to external challenges which had been mapped nearby.

Tech–based challenges were on people’s minds, but not a major source of anxiety

When mapped out, groups largely placed these challenges in the low–to–moderate end of the spectrum in both likelihood and potential impact. This seems to indicate at least guarded optimism that we’re on the right path to solving these challenges.

Economic wellbeing was a less acute challenge than we expected

While concerns over democracy’s ability to deliver was an oft-cited concern, economic wellbeing was not specifically raised as a challenge all that often. Challenges related to inequality and poverty figured in group conversations. Yet groups tended to cluster these challenges as either being not critically likely to erode our democratic institutions, or as likely to have low–to–moderate impacts.

Our electoral processes are expected to be resilient

While the citizenry’s faith in elections and democratic institutions more generally were an oft-cited concern, there was far less anxiety over the actual technical integrity of elections. This suggests that the perception of democratic weakness is a more pressing danger than an actual technical weakness – at least in the core democratic institution of electoral processes.

Inequality matters, but how much?

For years, growing inequality has been an oft-cited concern within democracies – and thereby the future health of those democracies. Inequality was also a major discussion point among participants, yet there was little agreement on the likelihood or impact of that inequality. Furthermore, there was no noticeable clustering of obviously inequality-related threats as such. Reading deeper, problems that are exacerbated by inequality were regularly clustered with other threats.

Challenges to democracy.

Foreign threat and vulnerabilities

Vulnerability to foreign influences – overt or otherwise – were perceived to have a very high potential impact, but a relatively low likelihood of reaching a worst case scenario. On the one hand this is reflected in concerns about geopolitical competitors, particularly Russia and China. On the other is concerns that our democracies are internally struggling to be resilient to the challenges these competitors represent. The likelihood representation is notable in that it was lower than expected, given the current deterioration of relations with some of the more powerful non-democratic states, and given the documented efforts of some of these states to undermine democratic processes and social fabrics in democracies. However, note there are also a significant number of foreign influence threats noted in the highest-threat quadrant – suggesting broad agreement that foreign actors can have a major malign influence on our democracies, but some sense of disagreement about how likely those threats are to reach their potential.

 

Education deficit

Concerns about education occupy two adjacent clusters. Both clusters are placed on the grid near the middle, indicating moderate danger in terms of level of impact and likelihood of that negative impact being realized.  In both cases, concerns revolved around how failures in our education systems impact people’s ability to think critically – and there is an attendant lack of knowledge about fundamental concepts underpinning disruptive challenges like climate change and the speed of exponential tech innovations. These lacks contribute to distrust within and across societies and institutions.

 

Distrust

There are two separate clusters concerned with distrust, both located fully or partially within the highest-ranking threat quadrant. In this case, the sources of distrust were diverse – from internal societal issues to externally fueled disinformation campaigns to the impact of technology. Similar concerns populate much of the rest of the highest-ranked threat quadrant, though too scattered to incorporate into a cluster. 

 

Feelings of insecurity

Feelings of insecurity are a challenge to democratic institutions which rate relatively high on the likelihood scale, while rating moderate on the impact scale. Here, there is a sense of anxiety that the major systemic changes impacting our societies, alongside a more threatening geopolitical landscape, create a sense of insecurity. That, in turn, could lead to populations turning to leaders that promise stability, even at risk of declining democracy.

 

FOD Expert Commentaries

FOD participants were invited to submit commentaries either reflecting on the conversations at the forum, or developing ideas on the future of democracy that were informed by those conversations. These have been compiled below.

Culture as ideology puts democracy at risk

Today’s polycrisis threatens democracies worldwide. Bad actors exploit cultural and educational systems to suppress dissent. To safeguard democracy, we must promote critical thinking and protect educational and cultural institutions, writes Gregory Houston. read more.

Bolstering resilience in diverse democratic frameworks

With the majority of the world being avid consumers of the news, one crucial theme has emerged: Democracies are under attack. However, democracies vary in resiliency based on where they fall on the spectrum of mature or nascent development of democratic institutions, writes Eileen Ackley. read more.

Democracies must reform to survive

As threats to our democratic institutions increase even as faith in those institutions decline, we are entering a difficult to break cycle of compounding negative effects. In mature democracies, the answer lies in reforming the electoral system, writes CPSC’s Rep. Glenn Nye. read more.

How unintentional voting erodes democracy

Our daily interactions with technology are often overlooked; while such micro–actions are actually shaping society without our informed consent. The lack of transparency behind algorithms is anti–democratic and calls for an expanded understanding of civic participation, writes Elizabeth Sandler. read more.

Misinformation and hyper division, democracy's biggest threat and opportunity

At the Future of Democracy Forum, a diverse group of leaders reached a key point of consensus—social breakdown is a far bigger threat to our democracies than we’re acknowledging. We must meet this division with understanding and connection to reinvigorate democratic society, writes John Gable. read more.

Democracy under threat: A crisis of confidence

Democracy is in a state of decline, but that decline is temporary. Rather than an existential crisis, democracy is experiencing a crisis of confidence, writes Jon Gregory. read more.

Education is key to any strategy to preserve and nurture democracy

Advancing information and communication technologies offer economic opportunities and new civic platforms but face censorship and exploitation. To preserve democracy, we must invest in education—equipping us with cyber skills, critical thinking, and civic education, writes Camille Stewart Gloster. read more.

Dedicated space for civil debate key to democratic resilience

Nascent and mature democracies have different needs for strengthening resilience—but lack of accessible, safe spaces for civil debate are a vulnerability for both, writes Larissa Ramirez. read more.

The individual actor and democratic resilience

While external threats to democratic institutions are serious, it is internal social discohesion that is the greater threat. To do better, individuals must take ownership of their role as members of a free and open society, writes Ethan Brownread more

Migration, mental health, and democracy

Around a billion people around the world have been forcibly displaced. The mismatch between their mental health needs and the capacities of their hosts to meet those needs pose long–term problems for democracy, writes Amy Kaslow. read more.

Democracy has lost its global appeal, consider Afghanistan

The greatest threats to our democracies are internal, says Amb. M. Ashraf Haidari, as Western leaders lack the will to truly support fragile, nascent democracies like Afghanistan. read more

Future of U.S. democracy is brighter than you might think

While faith in institutions is dwindling and many are discussing a crisis in democracy writ large, democracy’s present and future are stronger in the U.S. than many think, writes Elizabeth Dial Pinkerton. read more.

How 'grind culture' downplays democracy's importance to young men

‘Grind culture’—a notion put forward by some social media influencers about work, status, and profit—is very attractive to young men today as a way to earn status. Its rhetoric is also hostile toward institutions, making these young men less likely to take part in civic life, writes Leo Sereni. read more.

Artist Commentaries

After the close of collective intelligence exercises at FOD, participants were invited to an exhibition—Democracy in the Crossfire—a partnership between International Arts & Artists (IA&A) and Diplomatic Courier, to emphasize the human cost of democracies in peril. Similarly, here we present six pieces of art from that exhibition along with short artist commentaries.

The Democracy in the Crossfire exhibition is concluded, but you can find more about IA&A’s past, current, and future exhibitions here.

Refugee in Kurdistan - Sebastian Rich

2022
photograph
24 x 16 in

DISSENT IN DEMOCRACY

Maybe after a lifetime of documenting the worst horrors that mankind can inflict on its own species the fourteen principles of democracy are just a long forgotten somewhat infuriating naive faded dream. Like a fading dream in the early morning hours, those vaulted principles we dearly cling to slip from our perceived waking reality into a memory we just can’t seem to grasp!

When looking through my viewfinder at a mother in floods of tears at losing her whole world or a child clinging to her dead fathers scattered bloody body parts, democracy is an absentee landlord at the very best.

Maybe photojournalists, more eloquent than I, can wax lyrical about democracy in their particular genre of imagery, but for me democracy is not a concept that comes to mind in documenting the acute suffering of the most vulnerable in our society.

The following was distilled from an interview with a Syrian refugee (mother of six)

CONSTANTLY

…………………………

I have buried my children

I have buried my husband

I have cried constantly

I feel pain constantly

I fear constantly

I want to smile constantly

I want to laugh constantly

I am a refugee

I did not choose to be

I am the same as you

Why do you fear me constantly?

Maybe democracy lies dormant in her sad words.

Entire Life in a package - Orna Ben Ami

2017
Welded iron sculpture and charcoal lines on photo
23.5 x 17.75 x 3.5 in

For anyone who was born, grew up and lived their life in a democracy, it is understandable that they live in the place they choose. German philosopher Immanuel Kant published, in 1795, the essay “Perpetual Peace.” In arguing that states must be democratic before they can attain lasting peace, Kant laid down the foundations of “Democratic Peace Theory, which remains popular in political science today.

Becoming a refugee is a result of wars and life spent in a dictatorship.

In my exhibition “Entire Life in a Package” I gave expression to the pain of the refugees who are forced to leave their homes and find their future in a new and unknown place.

Through my art, I try to touch the human soul and express the whispers of the hearts of the refugees who flee from war zones and totalitarian countries; in their packages, they manage to take from their homes all their hopes for the future.

I sculpt with iron by welding my ideas, and in some of my works I attach the sculptures to flat photographs. “Entire Life in a Package” was exhibited at the United Nations in New York and Geneva, as well as in 11 museums around the world. I chose to sculpt on photographs of refugees who fled from Syria and Africa.

It is my feeling that what people take with them from home gives them strength and hope to continue the difficult path.

In Germany I met Syrian refugees. They thanked me for expressing their feelings. I am an Israeli and when they hugged me, I felt that art can build bridges between people, and hopefully between countries too.

Orna Ben-Ami

The American Way - Renée Stout

2023
Acrylic, latex and spray paint on wood panel
21.5 x 27.5 x 2 in

Brought on by a rise in Christian nationalism that have been aided and abetted by a religiously biased and politically motivated U.S. Supreme Court, we are at a moment where a minority of this country’s population believe that they are the “real Americans” and are therefore entitled to force their beliefs on the will of the majority. Their aim is to reverse the progress and changes within our society that they see as a threat to their identity. Out of fear, and the hate that it manifests, they judge and seek to control LGBTQ people, immigrants, people of color, women, and anybody else who doesn’t fit into their narrow definition of what it means to be an American.

As an artist, my work and my very being has been inspired and shaped by my research into the various spiritual belief systems that the enslaved Africans carried with them throughout the diaspora and how those beliefs were demonized as they were replaced with the notion that the only true religion was and is Christianity. In the work, I’ve always addressed a variety of issues on many levels, but a recurring thread is the examination of how religion is often at odds with spirituality and what it means to embrace and care about our planet and fellow humans. Religion, in this country, has been used to divide and control through judgment, rather than bring people together.

The piece in the exhibition was painted to evoke neon, which for whatever reason has always struck me as odd when I’ve seen it used in church signage.

The Great American Cruise - Shamila N. Chaudhary

2021
Water-based paint on gesso board
9.5 x 11.5 in (including frame)

“The Great American Cruise” addresses how the aspirations and values of American democracy are turned on their head when faced with issues such as migration and conflict. One example is the migration crisis on the U.S.Mexico border. In this work, Lady Liberty and Lady Justice navigate a boat of migrant children, while an oarsman uses Lady Liberty’s torch to steer the ship. The boat continues its perilous journey despite being targeted from many enemies visible and invisible, with radar and targeting imagery flashing across its path. All the while, an audience of Americans watch from the shore. It is not clear if the fences on the shoreline are to prevent the migrants from entering, or if the Americans themselves are caged.

I’ve used art to explore these tensions because the practice of drawing and painting shapes intellectual thoughts with a freedom that the spoken or written word does not. Art also creates space for empathy that is unfortunately missing in much of the discourse on migrants in the United States, and without empathy, democracy will remain in the crossfire.

Waste Picking: Trash for Livelihood - Zoe Kosmidou, Ph.D.

2023
Photograph
24 x 15 in 

Waste pickers of Pretoria and other South African major cities are individuals who collect recyclable materials from bins, streets, and landfills to earn a living. They are typically from marginalized communities and may include migrants and unemployed individuals. They work tirelessly, often starting their day in the early morning hours, scavenging through waste to find items such as plastic, glass, and metal, which they can sell to recycling centers. Their income varies greatly depending on the quantity and quality of materials collected, but it’s often meager, barely enough to make ends meet.

While some people appreciate their role in recycling and waste management, others may view them with disdain due to the perception of them as scavengers. However, waste pickers play a crucial role in reducing landfill waste and contributing to environmental sustainability. Their work also serves as a form of informal recycling, which complements formal waste management systems.

Despite facing social stigma and economic challenges, many waste pickers are resilient and resourceful individuals who make significant contributions to their communities and the environment.

The RightNOW Project - Kirsty Little with Becky McFall

2024
Montage (photos, coat hangers)
6 ft x 12 in

This exhibition explores inclusive democracy, focusing on women’s equality, especially after the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In creating this work, I realized the need for a balanced representation—beyond women supporting women. I included men and expanded to diverse races, genders, and individuals with physical challenges, representing broader segments of the population.

The montage became a powerful statement about human rights and the hope for equality. Community members who participated could choose to be photographed, though some refrained for safety reasons. The photographs were assembled into a montage of full-length figures, symbolizing a cross-section of people united by a commitment to women’s rights and social justice. Over 1,000 individuals participated.

In the future, I aim to include people from other cities and countries, addressing diverse needs for equality and justice. I want to amplify the voices of those who feel marginalized and unheard. The more inclusive the project becomes, the more we can harness the collective power of art as a force for democracy and social change.

Through this inclusive approach, I strive to embody the principles of inclusive democracy—ensuring broad participation, promoting equality, and advocating for social justice. My art serves as a medium to foster community, raise awareness, and inspire collective action towards a more democratic and equitable world.

 

Credits.

Report authors were Jeremy Fugleberg, Melissa Metos, and Dr. Shane C. Szarkowski.

FOD Hosts

Partners and Sponsors

And especially thank you to FOD participants, facilitators, and speakers for all the thoughtful conversations and insights.