The Crossroads of Democracy: What Future Awaits Global Republics?

Key Takeaways

• **Erosion of Trust and Predictability:** The global decline in liberal democratic principles, particularly in mature economies like the US, introduces significant political risk, eroding investor confidence and increasing uncertainty in policy, regulation, and the rule of law, directly impacting capital flows and risk premiums.
• **Economic Inequality as a Market Headwind:** Deepening wealth and income disparities, exacerbated by deindustrialization and the potential future impact of AI, threaten broad-based consumer demand, foster social unrest, and risk driving populist policies that destabilize markets through protectionism or radical fiscal shifts.
• **Geopolitical and Systemic Risks:** The shift towards autocracy and internal divisions in leading nations amplify geopolitical tensions, disrupt global supply chains, and challenge the integrity of international economic frameworks, demanding higher risk premiums across asset classes and complicating long-term investment strategies.

On July 4 2026, as the US celebrated the 250th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence, financial markets and analysts alike were prompted to reflect not just on historical milestones, but on the future implications of the nation’s foundational principles. The Declaration’s powerful opening words – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” – resonate with a certain irony in an era marked by democratic backsliding and unprecedented economic stratification. For market participants, the health of democratic institutions is not merely an academic concern; it directly underpins the stability, predictability, and long-term growth prospects of economies and investment landscapes worldwide. A robust democracy, with its inherent checks and balances and commitment to the rule of law, historically offers a more predictable environment for capital allocation and wealth preservation than its authoritarian counterparts.

Despite the bold claim about equality, the US created by the founding fathers was inevitably far from democratic. Some 60-70 per cent of adult white men had the vote in 1792. But women, slaves, many free Black people and Native Americans were excluded. Universal suffrage democracy was still almost unthinkable. Achieving it was a long struggle, in the US and elsewhere, mirroring a gradual expansion of economic opportunity that, historically, often correlated with increasing market access and capital formation. The founders thought they were creating a republic, not a democracy. In the former, the head of state is elected, not a hereditary monarch. Today, however, this is no longer a useful distinction. We would regard a constitutional monarchy with an elected government, such as Denmark’s, as a democracy, and a supposed republic, in which political opponents find themselves in prison, such as today’s Turkey, as yet another autocracy. From an investment perspective, the critical distinction lies in the predictability and impartiality of the legal and regulatory framework, rather than the ceremonial head of state. Markets abhor uncertainty, and autocracies, by their nature, introduce systemic risks that democracies, even flawed ones, typically mitigate.

The distinction between a democracy and an autocracy, particularly relevant for market stability, depends on two features: the role of fair elections in deciding who holds power and the role of law, especially constitutional law, in constraining what the people in power can do. In a republic, government is not only elected, but law-governed and constrained, not arbitrary and despotic. This “rule of law” is the bedrock upon which property rights, contract enforcement, and predictable taxation are built – essentials for attracting and retaining both domestic and foreign direct investment. Without it, capital takes flight, and risk premiums on assets skyrocket. Companies struggle with long-term planning, and the cost of doing business rises, ultimately dampening economic growth and investor returns.

Democratic republics, then, are what we would now call “liberal democracies”, namely, ones that combine fair elections with fundamental civil and political rights. In 2025, according to V-Dem, just 7 per cent of the world’s population lived in such a state, down from 17 per cent two decades earlier. This decline represents a significant shift in the global operating environment for businesses and investors. Was the US one of them? No. It lost that status under Donald Trump, for obvious reasons, with an exceptionally rapid decline in 2025. This cannot surprise sane people. The erosion of democratic norms in a major global economy like the US sends chilling signals to international capital, suggesting increased policy uncertainty, potential for trade protectionism, and a less predictable legal landscape. Such instability can deter long-term capital commitments, increase volatility in equity and bond markets, and potentially lead to currency depreciation as investor confidence wanes, forcing a re-evaluation of the “safe haven” status traditionally afforded to US assets.

In sum, the US celebrations are in part a wake: liberal democracy and even electoral democracy are in retreat. This retreat is not just a political phenomenon; it has profound economic ramifications, creating headwinds for global growth and stability, and forcing investors to recalibrate their risk assessments for even the most established markets. The geopolitical landscape becomes more complex, increasing the probability of trade disputes, sanctions, and regional conflicts – all of which directly impact corporate profitability and supply chain resilience.

So, why has this been happening? And where might the system go in future?

In The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, I attributed the rise of contemporary democracy to the spread of liberal ideas, which the Declaration of Independence itself embodied. Crucially, economic freedom often paved the way. This freedom led, in time, to a host of technological, social, political and cultural changes. These included industrialisation, urbanisation, mass education, a growing middle class and an organised working class. From a market perspective, this period fostered predictable economic expansion: industrialization created new markets and labor demand; mass education enhanced human capital, boosting productivity; and a burgeoning middle class fueled robust consumer demand, underpinning corporate profits and stable investment returns. The need for a conscript army able to bear arms in defence of the nation also played a role in governments starting to care more about their people, while the latter became more economically and politically organised. Quite ordinary people were then able to insist on being treated as citizens with economic and political rights. This expansion of rights and economic inclusion directly contributed to a more stable and broadly prosperous society, reducing the likelihood of social upheaval that can deter investment and fostering an environment where innovation could thrive, further boosting market confidence.

Yet, today, the triumph of liberal and democratic ideals, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, seems ancient history. In many former colonies, their roots were understandably shallow, making their markets more susceptible to political volatility and the risk of capital flight. The success of autocratic China, demonstrating that rapid economic growth can occur without liberal democracy, has also been influential, challenging the long-held assumption that democracy is a prerequisite for prosperity. This shift impacts global capital flows, as investors weigh the potential for higher returns in authoritarian states against the inherent political and expropriation risks, often leading to a higher discount rate for such investments. Powerful interests in favour of autocracy operate in many countries, often driven by a desire for unchecked economic power or control over national resources, leading to crony capitalism and distorted market competition. So too does the age-old human desire for a strong leader, which can manifest as populist movements threatening established market institutions and advocating for disruptive economic policies like nationalization or aggressive trade protectionism.

Meanwhile, in many supposedly consolidated democracies, cultural and identity divisions have fractured a sense of shared citizenship. This social fragmentation translates into policy paralysis or erratic shifts, making it difficult for businesses to plan long-term investments and for central banks to manage economic cycles effectively. So did technological and economic changes — the digital revolution, the rise of social media, deindustrialisation, the relative decline of the old working class and the rise of a huge university-educated elite. The chart depicting the declining share of wages and salaries in US gross domestic income since 1980 starkly illustrates this economic shift, indicating reduced broad-based consumer purchasing power and increased reliance on debt, which can weaken overall economic resilience. In this world, populism has returned, in force, with its false promises of salvation, often advocating protectionist trade policies or radical economic restructuring that threaten global supply chains and established market norms, creating significant volatility for multinational corporations and commodity markets.

To try to understand what might happen next, it is essential to remember an obvious truth: democracy is founded on an ideal of political equality. Such a system is far more likely to operate, as Aristotle himself noted, in a society with prosperous and confident middle and lower middle classes. That is what the growth of the 19th and 20th century delivered to the high-income countries, creating a broad consumer base and a stable tax base for public investment. But this has now, to a significant extent, reversed for the old industrial working class, whose economic precarity contributes to social discontent and susceptibility to anti-establishment rhetoric. Today, AI threatens a significant portion of the educated middle class, too, with potentially unprecedented implications for labor markets and aggregate demand. Indeed, the Bank for International Settlements suggests in its latest annual economic report that if AI replaced much of human labour, the latter’s share of income could fall to 20 per cent. This scenario would dramatically alter consumption patterns, challenge existing social safety nets, and necessitate a fundamental rethinking of fiscal policy, potentially leading to market dislocations and increased calls for wealth redistribution or universal basic income, which carry their own fiscal and inflationary risks, creating significant uncertainty for bond markets and corporate earnings alike.

This would be a return to a feudal society, in which a small portion of the population controlled everything that mattered. We can already see the rise of an extraordinarily rich and powerful plutocracy: the wealth of the top 0.00001 per cent of US citizens is far greater relative to national income today than it has ever been before. This extreme concentration of wealth raises questions about market efficiency, fair competition, and the potential for regulatory capture, all of which can impede long-term, equitable economic growth and create an uneven playing field for businesses. We can even envisage the emergence of private robotic armies, a chilling prospect that underscores the potential for private power to override public institutions, with significant implications for sovereign stability and security risk premiums, potentially necessitating higher defense spending that further strains public finances. Moreover, these oligarchs exercise powerful influence on politics, both at home and abroad, potentially skewing policies in their favor and away from broad public benefit, further undermining democratic legitimacy and market fairness. We should add to this the Balkanisation of the media ecosystem by social media, which fragments public discourse, making rational policy formation more challenging and increasing the risk of politically-driven market shocks based on misinformation or emotional responses. Arguably most important, if they are to endure, democratic republics require a responsible and ethical elite committed to ideals of civic virtue. Is that what the plutocracy is delivering today? Is this what Trump has ever offered? No. And, apart from all this, the old democracies suffer severely from fiscal overstretch, a condition that can lead to sovereign debt crises, inflationary pressures, and higher borrowing costs for both governments and corporations, further straining economic stability and diminishing investor confidence in public assets.

So, what is the future of liberal democracy? Embattled. If it is to survive, we will have to fight for it, again. For financial markets, this fight is not an abstract political battle but a critical determinant of future stability, growth, and the very framework within which capital operates. The predictability, transparency, and rule of law inherent in robust democracies are invaluable assets that, once lost, are incredibly difficult to regain, carrying immense costs for investors and businesses alike.

Market Impact

The intensifying “democratic depression” outlined above presents multifaceted risks for financial markets globally. Investors should prepare for increased volatility stemming from unpredictable policy shifts, heightened geopolitical tensions, and potential social unrest. The erosion of the rule of law in key economies will elevate political risk premiums, particularly impacting emerging markets but increasingly affecting developed nations. Corporations may face greater regulatory uncertainty, increased demands for social responsibility, and potential disruptions to global supply chains due to protectionist policies or regional conflicts. Furthermore, the exacerbation of economic inequality, driven by technological shifts like AI, could undermine broad consumer demand and necessitate significant fiscal interventions (e.g., UBI, wealth taxes) that alter investment landscapes and challenge traditional valuation models. Diversification across geographies and asset classes, with a keen eye on governance risks and social stability metrics, will be paramount for navigating this increasingly complex and uncertain global environment. Long-term capital allocation will favor regions demonstrating robust democratic institutions, predictable legal frameworks, and proactive strategies to address economic disparities, offering a more stable foundation for sustainable returns.

[email protected]

Follow Martin Wolf with myFT and on X