Abstract
In the study of political systems, equilibrium stands as a cornerstone, underpinning stability and legitimacy. As we navigate the third decade of the 21st century, amid growing threats to democratic validity, it becomes crucial to re-examine this equilibrium principle. Even established democracies like the USA aren’t immune to the pitfalls of polarization, tribalization, and radicalization. In this text, we aim to explore the resilience of equilibrium in the face of these destabilizing trends. Equilibrium, traditionally viewed as a cohesive product of political competition coming as if naturally, is a mark of consolidated democracy. Yet today, as even robust democracies face internal crises, strained by polarization and fragmentation, the concept of equilibrium evolves to become a compound equilibrium consisting of disjointed axes of conflict, each seeking its individual balance. Such systems necessitate greater leadership intervention or require new rules and processes to restore cohesion. In this text we pose numerous questions about the way this process of fragmentation is overcome and compound equilibrium achieved. Interestingly, some of the measures call on limiting rather than enhancing democracy. The analysis has its historical context. Post-Cold War America exemplifies the notion that more democracy doesn’t necessarily equate to stronger democracy. While the focus here is primarily on the American system, as more democratic nations adopt its practices (such as debates and primaries), it’s hoped that insights from the USA can shed light on how democracies globally might respond to internal and external challenges to their equilibrium.