IN EXPERTS WE TRUST

Young democracies are hungry for competent govt, even if they didn’t elect it

economically disadvantaged than their parents, so perhaps there’s an economic explanation for the phenomenon.

Most people can’t think of government forms in the abstract. Winners (in every sense — those who are wealthier and more used to freedom, those with more schooling, those who voted for the winning party) are generally happier with the status quo than losers, and that affects their judgment.

What’s truly striking about the Pew findings, however, is what kind of experiment people would favour. The only nondemocratic form of government that attracts majorities in some countries is technocracy, in which experts, not elected politicians, determine how to run a nation. The list of countries where that’s a common belief is telling.

It’s in advanced democracies that experts’ allure has faded. When Michael Gove, currently the UK environment minister, said last year that “people in this country have had enough of experts,” he was right in the sense that British people didn’t want an expertocracy. They still don’t: 54 per cent believe it would be bad for the UK. Large majorities in Europe believe ordinary people should be more empowered, voting on major national issues — a preference that helps populist parties, which generally call for more referendums. But in countries where democracy is young, flawed or fragile, majorities would consent to technocratic rule. It’s usually second best after representative democracy in Pew respondents’ view, but it’s clearly preferable to strongman or military rule.