Democracy is arguably the greatest political buzzword of our time and is invoked by political leaders, corporations, and citizens alike—but what does it mean? Can it be defined, measured, and safeguarded? Can it be sold, bought, and transplanted? Can it grow? Can it die? What does it mean to people who cannot even talk about it? What does it mean to people who do not believe in it?

We have long been used to our democratic setup, founded on a constitution that ensures regular and fair general elections, the separation of powers, the assurance of the observation of the fundamental human rights of all, and the upholding of the rule of law. Any government is more effective if it enjoys popular acceptance. Today, governments usually claim a popular mandate from an election, even if that election is fraudulent.

The problem with a democratic government would be difficult to understand without including the time dimension in any analysis of the democratic process. This is because government pro tempore is an essential and defining characteristic of democratic governance. The time limit inherent in the requirement of elections at regular intervals is a powerful constraint on the arbitrary use by the winners of the electoral contest of the powers granted to them by the voters. At the same time, the fact that those defeated in the elections can look forward to victory at the next elections a few years hence is an essential incentive to stay in the democratic game.

All that would be in great danger if and when there is discerned a creeping path to autocracy in which a "strong" elected leader seeks to sideline or undermine established institutions and constraints—Parliament, the courts, the media, the police, the Attorney General, and the political opposition. Is such a scenario unfolding in front of us without our realising it? Is it reality or a false perception that this last decade has witnessed two strong leaders who came to power in competitive elections and then proceeded to dismantle checks on their executive power—and eventually the ability of opposition parties to challenge them on anything like a level playing field?

Have we not been seeing measures being enacted and aimed at strengthening political control over the independent judiciary and media, threatening non-governmental organisations, and limiting academic freedom? Have we not seen a few subtle interventions to end the public prosecution’s preliminary investigations into certain party politicians as well as to regain political control over the judiciary?

We are living a period of democratic backsliding and autocratization as we witness a process of regime change towards autocracy that makes the exercise of political power more arbitrary and repressive and that restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the process of government selection. This democratic decline involves the weakening of democratic institutions and the violation of individual rights that underpin democracy, especially freedom of expression.

Public authority does not belong to anyone. It is simply "out there", attached to various public offices, and whoever succeeds under the established rules of the game in gaining control of these offices has the right to use it. While the right to exercise public authority happens to be with existing officeholders today, other political actors with different and perhaps opposing interests may gain that right tomorrow, along with legitimate control over the policies and structures that their predecessors put in place. Whatever today's authorities create, therefore, stands to be subverted or perhaps completely destroyed by tomorrow's authorities.

But institutions, in the end, are rules and patterns of behaviour that are perpetuated by people and must be defended by people. If people abandon their unconditional commitment to democracy as the best form of government, if they come to put short-term programmatic or partisan advantage above the most fundamental rules of the democratic game, then democracy will be endangered. Political polarisation—which has been steadily increasing in this country of ours—facilitates this slide towards the autocratic abyss because it makes politics a zero-sum game in which there is no common ground uniting opposing camps. Therefore, anything can be justified in the pursuit of victory. Over the last decade, this dynamic of polarisation eroding the rules of the democratic game, paralysing the democratic process, and paving the way for a strongman has been a common scenario for the failure of democracy.

As we see our unaccountable rulers prioritising their own interests over the public’s, the popular demand for a rights-respecting democracy must remain strong. If our democracy is to prevail, we must do more than spotlight the autocrats’ shortcomings. We need to make a stronger, more positive case for democratic rule. We need to ensure that democracy delivers on its promised dividends.

It means standing up for democratic institutions such as independent courts, a free press, robust legislatures, and vibrant civil societies, even when that brings unwelcome scrutiny or challenges to executive policies. And it demands elevating public discourse, acting on democratic principles, and unifying citizens in the face of looming threats.

A lack of democratic procedures and institutions leaves any government unaccountable to the public. That makes it more likely to serve its own political interests and those of its cronies or diehard supporters. An autocratic government claims to deliver better results than its opposition, but it usually delivers mainly for itself.

If there is a lesson that stretches across history and public opinion data, it is that nothing should be taken for granted. The laziest and most fatal form of intellectual arrogance is to assume that what has been will continue to be, simply because it has a long history. Legitimacy is nothing more than a set of individual beliefs and values. If we do not work to renew those beliefs and values with each generation, even long-established democracies could be at risk.