Democracy is not limited to rules, institutions or elections. These elements are essential, but insufficient. What truly sustains it is the perception that the decisions that are made in our name are legitimate, even when we do not agree with them.
There is a fundamental distinction that needs to be made explicit. On the one hand, formal legitimacy, which arises from the rules, procedures and legality of the exercise of power. On the other, perceived legitimacy, which results from the way citizens recognize this power as fair and respectful. The first guarantees the functioning of the system. The second guarantees its sustainability. And this is precisely where many democracies begin to fail, even when they comply with all the formalities.
Just remember situations in which governments, elected in an absolutely legal way, face prolonged protests. Legally legitimate, but politically contested, because many citizens feel that they were not heard or that decisions were imposed without transparency. When the perception of justice and respect is lost, perceived legitimacy erodes, even if formal legitimacy remains intact.
In a time marked by polarization and radicalization, this distinction becomes central. Polarization is not just born from ideological differences. It feeds on an affective polarization, where people with whom we disagree stop being adversaries and become enemies. It is in this space that perceived legitimacy is built or destroyed.
This is also where empathetic leadership gains strategic relevance. Not as a vague concept, but as a concrete political competence. Leading with empathy implies understanding divergent interests, recognizing the legitimacy of others and creating conditions for different positions to coexist within a common framework.
It doesn’t mean giving in on everything. It means listening before deciding, explaining after deciding and taking responsibility for choices.
It is important not to confuse empathy with weakness. Empathetic leadership does not exclude firmness. Make it more legitimate. In contexts of disinformation or attacks on institutions, it also involves drawing clear lines.
Empathy is not naivety. It’s about understanding better to decide better.
The absence of this capacity has high costs. When citizens stop feeling respected, they move away. When they stop feeling heard, they become radicalized. When they stop trusting, they look for alternatives outside the system. Democracies rarely collapse overnight. They wear out from within, due to the continuous erosion of perceived legitimacy.
Respect is not just an individual attitude. It is also an institutional practice. Public policies designed without consideration for social impacts and decisions made without transparency weaken the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed. Trust is not asked for. It builds.
Democracy is, ultimately, a system of coexistence between different people. It doesn’t eliminate conflicts, it organizes them. Without mutual recognition, institutions become empty shells. In a more uncertain world, empathetic leadership goes from being desirable to becoming necessary. The solidity of democracies will depend both on their formal architecture and on the degree of legitimacy with which people perceive them.
Leave a Reply