The Demand for Democratic Erosion: Why People Embrace Strongmen

The current wave of political upheaval isn’t simply a matter of strongmen seizing power, but a response to a deeper societal malaise. That’s the central argument of a recent commentary by Daniel Sachs and it’s a perspective gaining traction as established democracies grapple with internal fractures. Sachs posits that focusing solely on the “supply side” – the individuals and ideologies driving disruption – overlooks the “demand” for alternative political arrangements. This demand, he argues, stems from a collapse of institutional trust and a widespread feeling that existing systems no longer deliver a credible path to a fine life.

The observation, published March 16, 2026, in Project Syndicate, resonates with a broader conversation about democratic erosion. It’s a shift in focus, moving beyond analyzing the actors pushing for change to understanding why so many people are receptive to their message. Sachs’ analysis, informed by observations from the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year, suggests that political volatility isn’t merely a series of external shocks, but a reckoning with decades of policy choices that have widened inequalities and eroded social cohesion. His reflections from Davos highlight a growing disconnect between citizens, and institutions.

The Erosion of Trust and the Rise of Disruption

This isn’t a uniquely American phenomenon, though the United States is currently a stark example. As American Democracy Watch notes, the frameworks used to study democratic decline in countries like Hungary, Poland, and Turkey are now directly applicable to the U.S. Political landscape. Their analysis points to a pattern of executive aggrandizement, institutional capture, and norm erosion – hallmarks of authoritarian behavior. Since President Trump’s second term began in January 2025, actions like the mass pardons for January 6th defendants, the dismissal of inspectors general, and the reintroduction of Schedule F (allowing the reclassification of civil servants) have been identified as textbook moves in this playbook.

The implications for businesses operating in the U.S. Are significant. Political instability creates uncertainty, making long-term planning more difficult and increasing the risk of policy reversals. Companies reliant on stable regulatory environments or government contracts face heightened exposure. The erosion of norms around independent oversight could also lead to increased scrutiny and potential legal challenges.

A Framework for Understanding Democratic Backsliding

Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, in their 2018 book How Democracies Die, identified four key warning signs of authoritarian behavior: rejection of democratic rules, denial of opponents’ legitimacy, tolerance or encouragement of violence, and a willingness to curtail civil liberties. Sachs’ work builds on this framework by emphasizing the underlying demand for such leadership. It’s not enough to identify the symptoms of democratic erosion; understanding the root causes is crucial for developing effective solutions.

From a business perspective, So recognizing that simply advocating for “democracy” or “good governance” isn’t sufficient. Companies need to address the legitimate grievances that are fueling the demand for alternative political arrangements. This could involve investing in communities, supporting workforce development programs, and advocating for policies that promote economic opportunity and social mobility.

The Economic Roots of Political Discontent

Sachs’ argument directly links political instability to economic anxieties. The collapse of institutional trust, he contends, is driven by citizens who no longer believe that existing systems work for them. This suggests a failure of the economic model to deliver broadly shared prosperity. Although aggregate economic indicators may be positive, the benefits haven’t been evenly distributed, leading to a sense of frustration and disenfranchisement among large segments of the population.

This has implications for corporate strategy. Companies can no longer assume that a rising tide lifts all boats. They need to actively consider the distributional effects of their decisions – how their actions impact workers, suppliers, and communities. Ignoring these concerns risks exacerbating the underlying demand for disruptive political change.

What’s Next: Rebuilding Institutional Legitimacy

The challenge, as Sachs frames it, is democratic renewal – not through constitutional reforms or high-level conferences, but by addressing the fundamental needs and concerns of citizens. This requires a shift in focus from simply managing crises to proactively building a more inclusive and equitable society. The Daniel Sachs Foundation’s work emphasizes the importance of renewing institutions and empowering individuals to participate meaningfully in the political process.

For businesses, this translates into a need for greater corporate social responsibility and a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue with stakeholders. It also requires a long-term perspective, recognizing that rebuilding trust and social cohesion will take time and sustained effort. The current political climate presents both risks and opportunities. Companies that can adapt to this new reality and demonstrate a genuine commitment to societal well-being will be best positioned to thrive in the years ahead.

The immediate procedural steps involve continued monitoring of policy changes and regulatory actions. Businesses should closely track developments related to Schedule F and any further attempts to undermine the independence of government agencies. Engaging with industry associations and advocacy groups can help amplify concerns and shape the policy debate.