Let’s talk about democracy. What does it mean to you? At the far-right conference I went to before Christmas (see my other two blogs for details - Who is legitimate? and The role of fear), I was surprised to find myself agreeing with their definition of democracy. Or, at least, I agreed with them at first. But then as the conversation progressed and I started to join the dots between their different proposals for rules, regulations and societal norms, I started to feel very, very concerned. Here’s why:
Saving democracy was one of the core themes of the conference. For the speakers, democracy mainly meant that when people vote, whatever happens, the result stands. Every vote should count.
That’s only fair, right? Every voice matters. All votes should count. As it should be, right?
According to the speakers:
Elections are the main source of legitimacy
Winning an election gives a government wide freedom to act
Losing an election means losing influence
This was also sounding all well and good, until I heard more about the other aspects of democracy that were being presented that day:
Institutions that provide checks and balances – such as the European Commission and European Court of Justice – are deemed obstacles, not safeguards, and should be dismantled
Absolute free speech is the desired goal; there should be no censorship of any form
There should be a reassertion of national, cultural and religious identity (which was presented as white Christian culture)
There should be fierce opposition to any social and cultural diversity that challenges that identity
There was no hiding what these assertions add up to: if and when the far-right win an election, a country doesn’t become “more democratic”. It becomes a place where elections still happen, but the guardrails that protect people, particularly those who are “culturally diverse”, are stripped away.
It means that a government with a majority could:
Redefine whose rights matter, and whose don’t
Turn political opponents and communities who don't share their white Christian identity into enemies of “the people”
Weaken the courts and the legislation that might stop it
Pressure the media and civil society that hold it to account
If you’re in a group they’ve decided is to be feared – migrants, Muslims, LGBTQ+ communities (see Who is legitimate? for the full list) – “losing influence” doesn’t just mean losing an election. It can mean losing services, losing rights, losing safety.
That’s the part that’s easy to miss if you only hear the slogan: let the people decide.
Which of course is absolutely the intention.
So, what else did I learn? During the presentations, the speakers didn’t just argue their case logically, they framed it emotionally. They described how democracy was being “taken away from the people” and “manipulated” by elites. Institutions such as the European Union and the European Court of Justice were described as “unelected” and “acting in bad faith”. Any regulation of speech was “censorship”.
That’s powerful messaging and, again, on the face of it, hard to disagree with.
What contributes to the effectiveness of this narrative is that it turns a political disagreement into a moral struggle and casts anyone who defends safeguards as anti-democratic. Once democracy is framed this way, it becomes very hard to talk calmly about checks, balances or protections without sounding like you’re trying to silence voters.
So how do we challenge this without sounding elitist or pro-censorship?
1. Find common ground first
While it’s tempting to start by correcting people or by telling them they’re wrong, instead start by naming what’s true in their frustration.
Voting should matter
People are fed up with being ignored
Democracy often feels distant and unrelated to real life
Say this clearly and early. It signals respect and removes the idea that you’re defending a broken system.
2. Provide a vision for a positive alternative that people can recognise
Again, it’s easy to warn about risks. Instead, paint a picture of the democracy people want, which provides a life that feels stable and fair. For example:
Elections that lead to real change for real lives
Governments that protect healthcare, homes, benefits and legal protection regardless of your background
Being able to organise, campaign and speak out without fear
Knowing the rules won’t be rewritten to shut people out
Trusting there will still be a fair chance next time
3. Ground everything in real lives
Democracy matters most on the days we need help – when we’re sick, out of work, discriminated against, or speaking up. Most people won't be thinking about how this relates to the European Convention on Human Rights or what the European Court of Justice does. So instead of talking about institutions and treaties, talk about what they protect:
Secure jobs and good pay
Healthcare when you’re sick; benefits when you’re in need
Protection from discrimination
The right to organise and protest
Fair treatment when you challenge power
4. Help people reach their own conclusions
Facts alone don’t change minds. And telling people what to think often backfires. What can work is helping people join the dots themselves.
In his 1968 paper Personality and Attitude Change, the social psychologist William J McGuire showed that persuasion isn’t about correcting people with the “right” facts. Attitude change, he argued, is active. People are more open to shifting their views when they reason things through for themselves rather than being told what to believe.
For those of us working in comms, this means focusing less on winning arguments and more on creating space for reflection – by asking questions, inviting imagination and helping people consider the consequences of what they support.
5. Emotions over logic
Many people who drift towards the far-right do so because they don’t feel heard. They are told their country is unrecognisable and, as cultures and traditions change around them, they believe it. They are looking for familiarity, belonging, certainty and recognition. And they want to feel safe, respected and in control of their lives and futures.
The far-right is effective because it speaks to feelings and offers hope: “we hear you; we share your concerns; we have the answers to your problems.” It also doesn't argue like a policy expert. If we want to challenge them, we must do the same, without giving up our values.
We need to show how the democracy we believe in will make society fairer, kinder and stronger, and will protect people as fiercely as we protect rights and responsibilities.
I’d love to know what you think – have you used any of these tactics and how successful were they? What’s missing from this list? Please share your ideas by dropping me a message.
