Capital Chatter matters

Why democratic norms?

I would wager that a considerable portion of the population with any news awareness is wearying of references to fading "democratic norms" but doesn't see them as anything other than capital chatter. The fears of such erosion, of course, do not focus exclusively on the United States but on a broader trend worldwide. This may be a facet of modernity, but the confluence of abandoning norms is accelerating.

Why do they have any fundamental importance? Do people even know what those norms are or why they became norms in the beginning? Or why we maintained them?

This morning's news alone highlights concerns about Indonesia's relatively young democracy, dating to the Suharto dynasty falling in 1998. The military, long the primary institution unifying the country, won unanimous support to expand its representation in the legislature despite public protests, indicating that checks and balances are wobbling because of a more significant military presence in governing. Discomfort with the armed forces' less-than-full embrace of human rights protections over the years is in some people's minds. Change in the statutory composition of the parliamentary branch hardly predicts disruptive days for the sprawling archipelagic state but threatens the relatively young principle of military subservience to civilian governance. Underlying fears of President Prabowo Subianto's ambivalence on human rights during an extended uniformed career hardly engenders certainty that the rule of law will survive despite a quarter century of progress towards a civilian-led nation.

Coincidentally, combative and perpetually embattled Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is also testing institutional norms by ousting the head of Israel's Shin Bet. The Prime Minister decries his loss of faith in the Israeli FBI-equivalent agency chief, precisely as domestic politics again pressure Netanyahu himself. Shin Bet's mission is both to provide domestic intelligence and to protect Israel's democracy. Ronen Bar acknowledged his agency failed to prevent the 7 October 2023 massacre precipitating the current war with Hamas but argues the Prime Minister's lack of confidence manifests preference for a "yes" man in the sensitive position.

Netanyahu likely seeks Bar's ouster for the more prosaic concern that the internal security personnel will thwart the Prime Minister's expansion of institutional power. Worrisome actions range from thwarting prosecution resulting from his behavior to animosity between Bar and Netanyahu to dismantling independent agencies—checks and balances in our terminology. Shin Bet's role in pursuing investigations on a non-partisan basis is at the heart of Netanyahu's discomfort. Many Israelis deem the Prime Minister's determination to pursue political (often self-aggrandizing) choices as antithetical to the seventy-seven-year history of the Jewish state. The Prime Minister and his ultra-conservative allies characterize Bar and those opposing Netanyahu's consolidation of power as a "leftist Deep State" while espousing institutional change favoring personal loyalty over dedication to Israel's democratic principles.

Determination to eliminate open public debate is an increasing feature of some former Soviet satellites, which have soured on the democratic experiments of the 1990s and early 2000s. Hungary is the most egregious (but hardly unique) case under Viktor Orban over the past generation. Earlier this week, Serbian protests expanded as the government failed to provide accountability for the collapse of a train station roof in 2024 amid behavior critics call corrupt and autocratic. In prolonged civil discontent (Serbia's dissatisfaction began years ago), too many regimes slide into repressing opponents. The state responds to challenges harshly, often imprisoning protestors while charging these citizens with aiding and abetting forces seeking to undermine the nation. It's a classic authoritarian playbook.

We each cite a perverse instance where this behavior erodes society's norms. The process is more commonly gradual rather than an armed insurrection in Santiago, Chile, on 11 September 1973, but equally damaging long-term to participatory governance. Citizens forget over the years what democratic norms meant, self-silencing and accepting new narratives of the nation's experiences.

Experiences, foundational documents, and basic civics are crucial for all societies, yet we increasingly discard both items in this country for educational preparation to find a job. Is that healthy? Israel, because of its existential founding for the Jewish people, teaches the history of the Holocaust and immigration from the Jewish Diaspora locations, I assume, but how much do they discuss the country's evolution after the founding of the state in 1948? Do British school kids study the Magna Carta of 1215, or do French classrooms cover the failures of the Fourth Republic reformed into the Fifth Republic? I don't know, but they are all fundamental issues in modern societies.

Tragically, few people know much about what preceded their lives these days. History isn't in vogue as a topic of study—the ignorance of why and why not steps work in a society can have devastating consequences.

A shocking number of extraordinarily educated, respected pillars of society are exquisite in their narrow fields while blissfully unaware of what preceded us. My husband came home earlier this week, surprised when a doctor knew absolutely nothing about why he would have deployed to Vietnam during the war. This physician asked who would have sent us there—the president? Of course, we all likely remember the contemporary events we lived through, but one might think Vietnam, that painful national saga, would have left an indelible mark worthy of everyone's historical study, but apparently not in all college majors. We do not have a national historic literacy test, but I would highly support assuring basics, perhaps established by a national bipartisan committee.

None of this would matter if people living in 2025 had a single, recognized recounting of events in a particular country or the world, similar to the Ten Commandments Moses brought from Sinai. In a world of personal "rights" and privileges, the three Abrahamic religions still adhere to those Commandments on paper, if not as individuals.

Yet, in this era of diverging trust in sources and often fabricated sources of history, driven by the marvel of the internet, the meaning of the past is not merely missing but frequently completely skewed by personal preference.

Some things did happen, such as the war in Vietnam, during which we sent millions of U.S. troops to fight between 1961 and 1973. However, a chasm exists between demonstrable facts and preferred explanations of the reasons and/or outcomes. The Civil War occurred between 1861 and 1865 when the Union defeated the Confederacy and its ideals.

Too much history is boring, and students must memorize dates or names. I do not envy any teacher attempting to cram so much into her curriculum, but history is somehow escaping. We abandoned geography and civics half a century ago, yet both still pertain to us all day in and day out in this country.

The problem seems more fundamental: we like our versions of history, even if they are entirely at odds with what occurred. A long-retired general officer went to China in the 2000s, where he spouted nonsense about the origins of the post-World War II world. His interlocutors, as did the specialists accompanying him, knew it was factually incorrect. When notified his remarks undermined credibility with his hosts, the individual retorted, "Well, I like my version much better," before appearing foolish to various people on the ground for the remainder of his visit. Using what "I wish had happened" or "what I want to create" rationalizations has disastrous consequences for individuals, countries, and potentially the broader worldwide community.

FACTS do exist: Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were heinous, blood-thirty individuals who cared not a whit about how their public because intimidation made right in the eyes of these men. Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are tragic perpetrators of barbarous treatment against those who challenge them. Most governments do not retaliate in such draconian, unrelenting manners against those with different views, but autocracy is a slippery slope too often built on convenient, ahistorical naiveté.

I am not calling for a single textbook or technique to perpetuate a gospel of history in any country. Still, supporting history as part of robust civic education is existential for participatory rule everywhere. A portion of that education is learning dates when events occurred or discussions ensued as actions created consequences. Reflecting on what preceded us also means learning to critique opinions differing from our own, not by dismissing them entirely but through considering the cause and effect of various proposals, actions, failures (indeed, failures can be superb education), and paths not taken. Too many people either ignore what has occurred or espouse fanciful causes and effects.

We are all paying for these behaviors, regardless of where they occur. Our power, however, is closest to home, where we can become part of change through a sustained, gradual process.

After all, the aforementioned gradual backsliding from participatory norms occurred in the same way: too many people here and abroad became distant from their history and ability to analyze it.

I thoroughly welcome your thoughts on this or any other column. My intention with Actions is to expand civic, measured dialogue. We all need to to hear from you because dialogue is neither a single-player game nor a spectator sport.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Thank you to the subscribers who provide resources to read a panoply of sources. A modest investment of $50 a year advances my column, as does a monthly contribution of $8. Of course, I also welcome gift memberships to the readership.

We received heavy rain last night, followed by incredible wind this morning. The sky cleared a couple of hours ago, but the clouds provided quite a show, as did the tulip yesterday.

I hope you get outside this weekend. Sunshine restores us following the long winter months. Be well and be safe. FIN

Aluf Benn, “Netanyahu is waging war on Gaza and us—his enemies within. It’s a path to autocracy”, The Guardian.com, 20 March 2025, retrieved athttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/20/benjamin-netanyahu-gaza-israel-palestinians

Isabel Kirshner, “Israeli Cabinet Approves Ouster of Shin Bet Chief, Who Calls Move Illegal“, NewYorkTimes.com, 20 March 2025, retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/20/world/middleeast/israel-netanyahu-shin-bet-ronen-bar.html

Jasmina Kuzmanovic and Misha Savic, “Serbs Rally Against Vucic Rule in Biggest Protest in Decades“, blooomberg.com, 15 March 2025, retrieved at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-15/serbs-rally-against-vucic-regime-in-biggest-protest-in-decades

Sui-Lee Wee and Muktita Suhartono, “In Indonesia, a Parliament Action Evokes Authoritarian Past”, NewYorkTimes.com, 20 March 2025, retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/20/world/asia/indonesia-military-law.html