The Institute of Politics JFK Forum recently led a conversation examining how democratic institutions—legislatures, political parties, and judicial systems—have been slow to adapt to a new global context marked by digital disruption and widespread public distrust in government. Hosted on April 4, the panel brought together moderator Steven Levitsky, director of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard and co-author of The New York Times bestseller “How Democracies Die,” and former President of Peru Dr. Francisco Sagasti.
Concerns about rising authoritarianism and the erosion of democratic institutions in Latin America have grown in recent years. In Nicaragua, the Ortega-Murillo regime has cracked down on dissent since the 2018 protests, shutting down independent media and violating fundamental human rights. In El Salvador, President Nayib Bukele—praised for reducing crime—has been criticized by human rights groups for consolidating absolute power and eliminating institutional checks and balances.
Similar trends have emerged in South America: Peru’s Congress has undermined judicial and electoral independence by replacing key officials with party loyalists, while in Brazil, the Supreme Federal Court has drawn criticism for actions seen as weakening democratic norms, including suspending access to social media platforms like X, formerly Twitter, during the 2024 elections.
Peru was central to the IOP discussion, as Sagasti reflected on his experience governing the region during civil unrest. He noted the country’s long history of democratic backsliding, with much of the 20th century dominated by authoritarian regimes and military dictatorships rooted in the legacy of colonialism. Despite this, the 21st century has arguably been one of Peru’s most democratic periods, though significant institutional challenges remain. Levitsky reinforced this reality by citing key statistics.
“Peruvian politics has been slowly imploding for a decade,” he said. “We’re at a point now where the president has a 3% approval rating—if we’re generous, maybe 4%. And that president is being held hostage by a legislature with a 2% approval rating. How can we step back from the brink? I’m not asking for Switzerland—but how do we get back to a minimally functioning democracy?” Sagasti acknowledged that rebuilding trust in democratic institutions after the deadly state repression of 2022–2023 will be a difficult task, but he holds a hopeful outlook.
“It’s going to be harder now, though—because the current group in power has embedded itself in institutions across the country,” he said. “We also have tools. Rather than only complaining about fake news on social media, let’s use those same platforms strategically—to disseminate truth, to share information that resonates, and to mobilize.”
Another topic that emerged from the conversation was the distinction between legality and legitimacy in democratic governance—a line that is often blurred but important to understand. The panelists stressed that, while governments may come to power through legal means, this alone does not guarantee their legitimacy.
Sagasti illustrated this point using Peru’s current political crisis. “The current government in Peru is legal—but it is not legitimate,” he said. Legitimacy, according to him, rests on three conditions: first, the consent of the governed; second, the pursuit of policies that serve the common good; and third, respect for institutions. “This government fails on all three counts,” Sagasti said.
Populism is also on the rise in the region—a reality acknowledged by Levitsky.
“One thing we’ve seen over the last 25 years is that these outsiders—often populists—very often end up assaulting democratic institutions,” he said. “Why has public discontent reached such levels throughout Latin America? And what can be done to try to restore a minimum of public trust in institutions?”
For Sagasti, the issue extends beyond Latin America.
“This is not just a Latin American problem,” he affirmed. “This is a problem worldwide. We’re seeing it everywhere. Wherever you go, you see electorates turning against incumbents.”
“We have to look at the roots of this discontent—at historical processes, technological changes, demographic changes, migration, and so on. And what it really means in practice is that the democratic arrangements we’ve had over the last half-century are no longer working as they were supposed to,” Sagasti continued.
Both speakers emphasized that rapid structural shifts are fueling this widespread disillusionment with democratic systems. Among the most disruptive of these is the transformation brought on by new technologies. As Sagasti noted, digital innovation has altered how people engage with politics, weakened traditional intermediaries like political parties, and enabled forms of communication that facilitate the spread of populist ideology.
The rapid evolution of technology has disrupted long-established democratic systems, where political parties, legislatures, and regulatory institutions once served as the primary channels for representation, decision-making, and oversight. For instance, legislatures and regulatory agencies worldwide have struggled to keep pace with exponential technological advancements like artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the Internet of Things. Sagasti highlighted the impact of how technologies are reshaping electoral politics.
“One of the key things that’s happened is that the role of political parties—which used to be to listen to their members, aggregate demands, filter them through ideology, and propose them to citizens—has broken down,” he said.
Sagasti also emphasized the recent shift in social media’s impact on politics. “People have direct access to views, data, and information. The intermediary role of parties is fading. Political scientists call it disintermediation. And we haven’t yet found effective ways to listen, process, aggregate, and project diverse views in a meaningful way for the electorate.”
“Then you pile on technological change, automation, and lack of opportunity due to things like AI, and it creates a perfect storm—an explosive situation that erodes public trust in institutions and opens the way to autocratic leaders making empty promises,” he continued.
In this sense, technology is not just a disruptor—it’s a catalyst for political instability when left unregulated and poorly understood. Governing nation-states in today’s rapidly evolving technological landscape present unprecedented challenges, like outdated regulatory systems and the spread of misinformation. This makes it challenging for governments to develop effective policies that respond to the social, economic, and political disruptions caused by rapid technological change.
Levitsky raised the question of whether these policies should be technical or political in nature: “So, is the solution technological or political? What are the first steps toward reducing this distrust of institutions?” he asked.
For Sagasti, effective policies must pursue two objectives: strengthening early education and regulating emerging digital platforms. “We need action at several levels. I’ll start with the most fundamental: infant care and primary education,” he said. “Unless we raise a new generation that can understand this chaotic world, who have internalized values like mutual respect and human dignity—it will be very difficult to stabilize democracy in the medium and long run.”
Sagasti then transitioned to regulating the digital world. “We must rethink how we regulate social media and teach people to filter out misinformation. That’s a learnable skill. We can train people in digital literacy and critical thinking,” he continued.
“We must train a new generation of leaders. Young people who understand we are living in a time of chaos, ambiguity, and rapid transformation—and who can still act with integrity and commitment to human values,” he said.
The panel addressed the grave consequences that can arise when a government lacks legitimacy, particularly in moments of internal conflict. Levitsky pointed to Peru’s recent history as an example. In late 2022 and early 2023, following the removal of President Pedro Castillo, widespread protests erupted in the Andean highlands. The state responded violently, leaving more than 50 civilians dead.
“It was one of the worst episodes of state repression in Latin America in the 21st century,” Levitsky said. “And yet, there’s been no political or legal accountability. So my question is: What happened? How could Peru reach a point where 50 civilians are killed—and the reaction is indifference?”
Sagasti offered a sobering explanation of how the government’s mismanagement of the military and police led to deadly force. According to him, much of the problem stems from a fundamental lack of knowledge among political leaders about how the military and police function.
“There is an absolute ignorance by political leaders about how the military and police operate,” he warned. “They think these institutions are like any other public agency. That’s a fatal mistake.” He recounted a visit to a military academy, where he heard a cadet say: “We are trained to kill. Terrorists are trained to kill us. It’s us or them.”
In this context, Sagasti explained, labeling protesters as “terrorists”—whether out of ignorance or political convenience—can have catastrophic consequences. “That triggers a reflexive response. The armed forces are trained to eliminate terrorists,” he said. “And then, if that leader congratulates the army or police for their actions, it’s even worse. They feel vindicated.”
Yet even as the need for new leadership grows more urgent, younger generations are increasingly hesitant to enter the political arena. Discontent with modern politics—driven by corruption, instability, and lack of institutional accountability—has discouraged many from pursuing public service, particularly in Latin America. In Peru, surveys have shown that trust in political institutions is among the lowest in the region, and student involvement in party politics has significantly declined.
For the panelists, this presented a worrisome reality. “I’ve been teaching Peruvian students for a couple of decades, and one of the hardest things to witness is this: so many of you are incredibly talented, but you come here, think about going into public service, and then look at Peruvian politics and say: ‘Good God, I’m not doing that,’” Levitsky said regarding the trend of political disengagement. “And if you—the best of your generation—don’t go into politics, then we’re really screwed.”
Levitsky’s emphasis on the need for younger generations to engage in politics was echoed by Sagasti, who stressed the close relationship between politics and policy. “It’s not enough to go into policy. You have to get into politics,” Sagasti said. “You need to enter early. Bring your policy skills. Form a team. But you must engage in the political arena—because otherwise, nothing changes.”
For both panelists, rebuilding trust, legitimacy, and a stable democratic order will require more than legal change—it will demand institutional accountability, moral adjustments, and a new generation of leaders equipped to navigate a complex and rapidly shifting world.
Nashla Turcios ’28 (nashlaturcios@college.harvard.edu) writes News for the Harvard Independent.