Depressing and provocative article by Branko Milanović. His piece recounts his experience at a recent Columbia University panel on democracy and inequality. He starts by noting that panelists used all the usual words—participation, agency, transparency, justice, no corruption, low inequality—and he asks: if you apply these concepts to today’s democracies, do they really mean anything?

What follows is a very sobering historical reminder. In 1932, Hitler’s party won the most votes in the German parliament, and by 1937 he was among the most popular leaders in Europe—he came to power democratically. And not just Hitler: in the 1930s, much of Europe was ruled by autocrats or semi-autocrats—Metaxas in Greece, King Alexander in Yugoslavia, Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, and others.

Branko then draws the parallel to today. Around the world, governments with autocratic tendencies are thriving. Trump, of course. Putin, who has won every election since 2000, and while many argue those elections were rigged, experts also admit he’d probably win even if they were free. Erdoğan has ruled Turkey for 22 years. Orbán in Hungary, Fico in Slovakia, Vučić in Serbia—the list goes on.

This raises Branko’s central question: is there something wrong with democracy itself? Could it be that ordinary people actually like the parties that social scientists and elites dismiss as “anti-democratic”? Could it be that people are using democracy to elect undemocratic leaders?

The U.S. offers another angle: almost 40% of eligible Americans didn’t vote in the last election. In many countries, a large portion of people are uninterested in democracy. And among those who do vote, a significant share choose the very parties that elites consider “wrong.”

So you end up with two realities: one group disengaged from democracy, another actively voting in ways that upset political scientists. Branko then turns his fire on the political scientists themselves—suggesting they may be studying the wrong thing, or at least failing to grapple with why voters consistently defy their expectations.

As I said, depressing and provocative.

Let me end where I began: with today’s conference. Those who attack majorities that vote wrongly seem to speak, when it comes to international organizations, in tongues that come from an entirely different era. They call for international solidarity, inter-country cooperation etc. at the time when the world is being divided into political, economic and military blocs. It is a fantasy that under the current conditions which are likely to prevail for at least several decades there will be anything but the very minimal ability to do things internationally whether it be fighting climate change, epidemics, or coordinating monetary policies, rescheduling of debts, trade rules. All of it basically has to go out of the agenda and would be dealt with either bilaterally or from position of force by whoever is in that position. So the presumption that there is some general interest shared by all citizens of the world is entirely inapplicable in today’s times. When one hears some such speakers, one feels that they have been stuck in the 1990s (when such illusions could at least have been entertained) and to not have observed that the world has since changed.