Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democracy 2.0 Requires a Commitment to the Common Good

News

Democracy 2.0 Requires a Commitment to the Common Good

From the sustained community organizing that followed Mozambique's 2024 elections to the student-led civic protests in Serbia, the world is full of reminders that the future of democracy is ours to shape.

The world is at a critical juncture. People everywhere are facing multiple, concurrent threats including extreme wealth concentration, attacks on democratic freedoms, and various humanitarian crises.


Instead of a world characterized by exploitation, eradication, and diminishment of political expression, we need a bold new social contract in which democracy evolves into a lived expression of political values that are centered on a relentless commitment to the collective well-being of our societies and the planet.

Reining in Extreme Wealth

The staggering concentration of wealth in the hands of a select few casts a long shadow over democracy. Not only does it create wealth inequality but it also it produces and exacerbates other inequalities like race and gender.

In 2024, the richest 1% of people worldwide owned more than the bottom 95% combined. And it's not just global inequality that has grown; inequality within countries has also become worse. This level of inequality is eroding trust in institutions, which in turn is weakening democracies. In Indonesia, for example, people "who believe socio-economic inequality is unjust, are more likely to hold negative attitudes toward democracy."

Beyond breaking public trust, extreme wealth has been used to sway the political landscape, often at the expense of the common good. While the relationship between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk received much scrutiny, relationships between the ultra-wealthy and anti-democratic leaders are not unique to the US. In India, billionaires like Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Andani have been longtime supporters of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party. Billionaire Eduardo Eurnekian's backing of Javier Milei in Argentina and Lajos Simicska's role in the rise of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary are other examples.

This corrosive impact of extreme wealth on democracy is undeniable and must be reined in. One way of doing this is through the effective taxation of wealth. According to the Tax Justice Network, a well-implemented wealth tax that is "flanked by globally coordinated measures to disallow tax abuse" could raise more than US $2 trillion. This would provide a stable source of revenue for countries and would also contribute toward the redistribution of wealth and security.

Redistribution alone, however, will not solve inequality. In South Africa, for instance, the wealthiest 1% have seen their pretax incomes soar by nearly 80%, while the poorest 20% have watched theirs shrink. This stark contrast reveals that any redistribution must be paired with policies that shape how pretax incomes are distributed in the first place. Tackling the deep-rooted imbalances of power and opportunity that stem from unequal ownership is crucial alongside enforcing robust antitrust measures to break up corporate dominance and stop unfair business practices.

Restitching the Unravelling Social Safety Net

Public institutions that provide public services are on the decline. Social spending has decreased worldwide, especially health care. From South Africa to Britain, people's struggle to access essential services like health care has resulted in a distrust of the political system. Anxiety over the perception that immigrants are overwhelming public resources is also rising. Using data from across 30 European countries, scholars have traced how ill health translates into anti-immigrant sentiment.

The unravelling social safety net has created an environment where exclusionary ideologies easily spread. Declining public services play a role in the surge of right-wing populist and nativist sentiment. Unscrupulous politicians use the tension to distract from their failures by scapegoating immigrants.

The chainsaws being taken to social spending that have now been popularized by figures like Milei and Musk must be rejected. Public services, which have been key in reducing global poverty and redistributing wealth and security, are an essential investment in communities and society.

Of course, reining in extreme wealth and increasing social spending are not silver bullet solutions for revitalizing democracy. More is needed, including dismantling corporate power, providing material security, global and countrywide wealth redistribution, and reparations. Each of these options reflects a commitment to the common good.

It is time for us to acknowledge the depth of inequality that exists and act in ways that benefit the needs of all and the planet, rather than the narrow self-interests of the few. Working toward collective freedom, shared prosperity, justice, and dignity is the only meaningful way forward.

This article was originally published as part of Resilience & Resistance, a Charles F. Kettering Foundation blog series that features the insights of thought leaders and practitioners who are working to expand and support inclusive democracies around the globe.


Koketso Moeti has a long background in civic activism and has over the years worked at the intersection of governance, communication, and people power. In 2025, she was announced as a Charles F. Kettering Global Fellow.

Resilience & Resistance is a Charles F. Kettering Foundation blog series that features the insights of thought leaders and practitioners who are working to expand and support inclusive democracies around the globe. Direct any queries to globalteam@kettering.org.


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less