Economist Says Open Societies Have Outlasted Political Violence

Open societies have survived waves of political violence from both the far left and the far right before, and the institutions that carried them through those periods remain largely intact, The Economist argued in an analysis published September 29 titled "Democracy is stronger than it looks." The piece frames current anxieties about democratic breakdown against a longer record of open societies absorbing shocks from what it calls "murderous leftists and fascist radicals," without concluding that the present moment is uniquely fragile.

What is the Economist's core claim?

The analysis contends that democratic systems have a track record of enduring organized political violence from opposite ideological poles, and that this history should temper current alarm about institutional collapse. The piece does not argue that democracies face no risk, only that resilience has historically outpaced the threats posed by extremist movements on both ends of the spectrum, according to the Economist's framing.

Where is democratic stress visible right now?

In Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, a separate HTT News dispatch published the same day reported that the country's ongoing war had been "long foreseen" by economists tracking the region, a finding that illustrates how conflict and governance strain can build for years before erupting into open violence, HTT News reported. The Ethiopian case sits apart from the Economist's global argument but offers a concrete example of the kind of instability that tests whether institutions hold or fracture under pressure.

How is war fatigue showing up in U.S. politics?

Closer to the American electorate, voters in Iowa and Ohio cited fatigue with prolonged conflict as a factor shaping their views ahead of the midterms, according to a separate HTT News report from Des Moines, Iowa, published September 30, HTT News found. That fatigue, distinct from the ideological violence the Economist's piece addresses, points to a related but different strain on democratic systems: public patience with sustained conflict abroad and its domestic political costs.

Does the historical record support the Economist's optimism?

The Economist's analysis rests on the premise that open societies have weathered comparable extremist threats in the past without collapsing, though the September 29 piece does not lay out a specific ledger of dates or casualty figures in the material reviewed. Its argument is structural rather than statistical: institutions built to withstand shocks from one ideological direction have, in the outlet's account, generally proven adaptable enough to withstand shocks from the opposite direction as well.

What should readers watch next?

The test of that argument will play out in real time across multiple fronts, from Ethiopia's continuing conflict to the American midterm cycle, where war fatigue is already registering with voters in states like Iowa and Ohio. Neither development confirms nor refutes the Economist's thesis on its own, but both offer live data points for whether democratic resilience, as described in the September 29 analysis, holds under current strain.

Artiglio is A coming-soon iPhone chief of staff for briefings and drafts. Not on the App Store yet.