Democracy has long been viewed as humanity’s crowning political achievement. It is hailed as a system that enshrines human rights, ensures peaceful transfers of power, and gives voice to the masses. But historical evidence and the results of the 2024 election suggest a more pragmatic and disheartening reality. Namely, democratic systems often survive or fail based not on citizens’ philosophical commitment to democratic ideals, but on their pocketbooks.

The relationship between economic security and democratic stability isn’t just theoretical. Consider the infamous collapse of the Weimar Republic, where hyperinflation and economic chaos created conditions ripe for authoritarian appeal. Or examine how Latin American democracies historically fluctuated between democratic and authoritarian rule in close correlation with economic cycles.

When people feel economically secure, they embrace democratic institutions. When they don’t, those same institutions quickly become negotiable.

Among political scientists and economists, this pattern is referred to as the “redistributive theory of democratization.” According to this framework, democracy isn’t primarily about political rights or representation, it’s about who gets what share of society’s economic pie. In studying this, the dominant finding is that wealthy elites have historically accepted democratic reforms only when the middle class became sufficiently large and prosperous such that the cost of redistribution is lower than the cost of maintaining authoritarian control through force.

Put more bluntly, the rich only agree to support a move to democracy when the cost of a progressive tax policy is less........

© The Hill