Democratic institutions, despite their foundational role in legitimizing governance through representation and accountability, increasingly exhibit vulnerabilities to elite capture and systemic inequities. 

Simultaneously, the middle class—often romanticized as a stabilizing force in democratic systems—demonstrates ambivalence, vacillating between reinforcing democratic norms and enabling their erosion.

The middle class mostly sustain a paradox of democratic stewardship. The middle class is frequently idealized as a democratic bulwark due to its assumed investment in stability, rule of law, and economic moderation (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2019). 

However, neoliberal policies since the 1980s have reconfigured middle-class identity, prioritizing asset ownership and consumerism over collective solidarity (Piketty, 2020). While Lipset (1959) linked middle-class prosperity to democratic consolidation, recent studies reveal that economic precarity—driven by wage stagnation, automation, and housing inflation—has fragmented middle-class interests (Standing, 2021). 

For instance, the rise of right-wing populism in democracies like India and Brazil reflects middle-class anxieties over status decline, channeled into support for authoritarian-leaning leaders who scapegoat minorities or “elites” (Norris & Inglehart, 2019). This shift underscores a paradox: the middle class, once a driver of progressive reform, now often aligns with forces that erode democratic norms (Mounk, 2018).

Democratic institutions, theoretically designed to mediate pluralistic interests, are increasingly skewed toward elite priorities. Legal frameworks permitting unlimited campaign financing (e.g., Citizens United v. FEC) enable corporations and wealthy donors to disproportionately influence policy (Gilens & Page, 2016). Such dynamics are exacerbated by gerrymandering and voter suppression, which dilute the political voice of marginalized groups (Hajnal et al., 2022). 

Institutional decay is further evident in the “revolving door” between public office and corporate lobbying, privileging short-term profit over public welfare (Drutman, 2020). Even judiciaries, intended as impartial arbiters, face politicization, as seen in the U.S. Supreme Court’s erosion of abortion rights and voting protections (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). These trends contradict Dahl’s (1989) pluralist ideal, revealing democracies as increasingly oligarchic (Winters, 2018).

The middle class’s ambivalence toward democracy stems from its dual role as beneficiary and victim of neoliberal capitalism. While globalization expanded consumer access, it also entrenched inequality, with the top 1% capturing 38% of wealth growth since 1980 (Alvaredo et al., 2018). 

Faced with stagnating living standards, segments of the middle class have embraced populist narratives that blame immigrants or welfare recipients for economic insecurity (Gest et al., 2018). In Hungary, Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party consolidated power by leveraging middle-class fears of cultural displacement (Bustikova & Guasti, 2019). 

Concurrently, democratic institutions fail to address systemic crises—such as climate change and healthcare inflation—due to legislative gridlock and corporate capture (Stiglitz, 2019). This mutual failure fuels disillusionment: voter turnout declines, extremism rises, and trust in institutions plummets (Foa & Mounk, 2019).

Addressing these challenges necessitates structural reforms to curb elite dominance and rebuild middle-class solidarity. Campaign finance overhauls, proportional representation, and anti-corruption measures could restore institutional legitimacy (Ziblatt, 2022). 

Policies targeting wealth inequality—such as progressive taxation and universal social programs—might realign middle-class interests with democratic norms (Piketty, 2022). Additionally, civic education initiatives could counter disinformation and foster cross-class coalitions (Benkler et al., 2020). Without such interventions, democracies risk devolving into “competitive authoritarianism,” where electoral rituals mask entrenched oligarchic control (Levitsky & Way, 2020).

References:

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2019). The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty. Penguin.

Alvaredo, F., et al. (2018). World Inequality Report. Harvard University Press.

Benkler, Y., et al. (2020). Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press.

Bustikova, L., & Guasti, P. (2019). “The Illiberal Turn or Swerve in Central Europe?” Politics and Governance.

Drutman, L. (2020). Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. Oxford University Press.

Foa, R., & Mounk, Y. (2019). “The Danger of Deconsolidation: How Much Should We Worry?” Journal of Democracy.

Gest, J., et al. (2018). The New Minority: White Working Class Politics in an Age of Immigration and Inequality. Oxford University Press.

Gilens, M., & Page, B. (2016). “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics.

Hajnal, Z., et al. (2022). Dangerously Divided: How Race and Class Shape Winning and Losing in American Politics. Cambridge University Press.

Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2020). Revolution and Dictatorship: The Violent Origins of Durable Authoritarianism. Princeton University Press.

Mounk, Y. (2018). The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Harvard University Press.

Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press.

Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and Ideology. Harvard University Press.

Standing, G. (2021). The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Does Not Pay. Biteback Publishing.

Winters, J. (2018). Oligarchy. Cambridge University Press.