I’ll Be Back by Henning Jon Grini - HTML preview

Resolution 1325) have elevated women’s involvement in peacekeeping and

conflict prevention. The evidence is clear that when women are involved, peace

agreements last longer and communities recover fastercfr.org. Women are also

leading humanitarian efforts in conflict zones, from Syria to South Sudan,

working to rebuild and heal war-torn societies. As the world faces complex

security challenges, women leaders – whether heads of government or

grassroots activists – are bringing more collaborative and compassionate

approaches to conflict resolution and international diplomacy. This bodes for a

future in which peace processes and security policies are more inclusive and

effective.

• Social Movements and Advocacy: Many of the most potent social and

political movements of our time have women at the forefront. Women are

leading the charge on issues like climate change, education, and human

rights. For instance, young female activists such as Greta Thunberg have

galvanized global climate action with their moral clarity and tenacity. In the

realm of girls’ education, figures like Malala Yousafzai have become

international symbols, influencing global commitments to ensure every girl

goes to school. The #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and assault,

which started in the United States with activist Tarana Burke and gained

worldwide momentum in 2017, is another example – it has led to concrete

changes in laws and workplace norms across countries. From Poland to

Argentina, women’s rights activists are organizing mass movements to fight

femicide, expand reproductive rights, and demand equal treatment. These

movements are reshaping cultural attitudes and forcing institutions to

respond. As a result, future societies are likely to be more aware of gender

justice thanks to today’s women advocates.

• Science, Technology, and Innovation: Women are also increasingly

contributing to shaping the future through science and technology. Although

underrepresented in STEM fields, women have made landmark innovations –

from Dr. Özlem Türeci (co-founder of BioNTech, key to developing the Pfizer

COVID-19 vaccine) to Katie Bouman (who helped produce the first image of a

black hole). Worldwide, initiatives are underway to involve more girls in STEM,

recognizing that the next generation of discoveries needs women’s minds. The

rise of women in tech leadership – e.g., CEOs of major tech companies and

unicorn startups – means the digital economy’s future will have female

architects. This is crucial as technology (AI, biotech, renewable energy) will

define the next decades. When women help design tech, products and

research are more likely to serve all of society (for example, considering

 

79

women’s health needs in medical research, or mitigating biases in AI). Thus,

women in labs, universities, and tech firms are shaping the future as much as

those in parliaments.

• Global Economy and Labor: Women’s growing role in the workforce and

entrepreneurship is another transformative force. In many countries, increasing

female labor participation is expanding the economy and changing workplace

cultures. Women-run businesses are on the rise globally, and many are

focused on social entrepreneurship – solving local problems from clean water

to financial inclusion. As more women attain higher education and control

economic assets, we can expect shifts in global economic priorities. Already,

research shows women investors and leaders often prioritize sustainability and

ethical business practices, influencing companies to be more socially

responsible. Furthermore, women as consumers drive trends and demand

corporate accountability. The “she-conomy” is an emerging power shaping

markets and innovation focus (for example, growth in sectors like

telemedicine, childcare tech, etc., that cater to needs long overlooked). In

short, women are not just joining the global economy but transforming it to

be more responsive and inclusive.

Overall, women are essential stakeholders in all facets of the world’s future. Higher gender equality is directly linked to greater global security and prosperity – countries with more empowered women are less likely to fall into conflict and more

likely to prospercfr.org. As we move further into the 21st century, the imprint of women in leadership, activism, and innovation will only deepen. We are likely to see more female heads of state, more women CEOs, more female Nobel laureates – inspiring others and normalizing women’s presence at the helm. The collective impact of women shaping the future is a world that could be more collaborative, equitable, and sustainable.

 

7. Strategies to Strengthen and Empower Women

Globally (with a Focus on the U.S.)

Empowering women worldwide requires concerted action across education, economics, politics, and cultural norms. The following strategies are being suggested and implemented to strengthen women’s roles – with special emphasis on policies relevant to the United States:

• Expand Girls’ Education and Skills Training: Education is the foundation of

empowerment. Globally, initiatives to ensure girls complete primary and

secondary school (and have equal access to higher education) are crucial.

Educated women marry later, have healthier families, and earn more, creating

positive ripple effects. Programs like scholarships for girls, school meal

 

80

incentives, and campaigns against child marriage all help keep girls in school.

In the U.S., enforcing Title IX (which prohibits gender discrimination in

education) and encouraging girls in STEM through programs like Girls Who

Code or science camps are ways to build the pipeline of future women leaders.

Supporting female literacy and vocational training in developing countries

through U.S. foreign aid and NGOs is another lever – for example, USAID’s

initiatives have focused on girls’ education in countries from Afghanistan to

Zambia.

• Enact and Enforce Legal Equality and Protection: Strengthening the legal

rights of women is fundamental. This includes enacting laws that guarantee

equal pay for equal work, prohibit gender-based discrimination and

harassment, and protect women’s rights to own property and inherit. Many

nations have adopted constitutional or statutory guarantees of gender equality

– the U.S. has laws like the Equal Pay Act and Civil Rights Act; there is also

ongoing advocacy for finally ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to

the Constitution. Robust enforcement is as important as the laws themselves.

Policies to combat gender-based violence are key as well. Globally, the

adoption of laws against domestic violence, marital rape, and sexual

harassment (backed by effective policing and judicial action) can empower

women to live free from fear. The U.S. reauthorization of the Violence Against

Women Act (VAWA) and efforts to address sexual assault in the military are

examples of strengthening protections. Ensuring women’s reproductive rights

and access to healthcare is another critical legal area – as seen in current U.S.

debates post-Roe v. Wade, which have significant bearing on women’s

autonomy and equality.

• Increase Women’s Political Participation (Quotas and Training): To

empower women in leadership, many experts advocate measures to boost

their numbers in politics. One proven approach is adopting gender quotas –

requirements that a certain percentage of election candidates or legislative

seats go to women. Around the world, over 130 countries have some form of

gender quota, and it has had a “massive impact” on the number of women in

politics, often doubling or tripling female representationhir.harvard.edu. Countries

like Rwanda (with a 60% female parliament) illustrate the effect of quotas.

While the United States does not have formal quotas, parties and

organizations are working to recruit and train more women candidates.

Initiatives like Emily’s List (which funds pro-choice women candidates) and

bipartisan programs for campaign training have helped increase the share of

women in U.S. Congress to about 28% (a record high). Further strategies

include mentorship programs pairing young women with female politicians,

public financing incentives (e.g. extra campaign funds for parties that run more

women), and addressing barriers like childcare for candidates. By creating a

supportive pipeline, the goal is to achieve greater gender balance in political

offices. Greater representation not only empowers the women who hold office

 

81

but also ensures women’s interests are better represented in policy – studies

show that when women are at the table, issues like health care, education, and

childcare get more attentionweforum.org.

• Economic Empowerment and Workplace Equity: Empowering women

economically is essential for global progress. This involves policies to help

women enter, remain, and thrive in the workforce. Key strategies include

providing affordable childcare and paid family leave (so that having children

doesn’t derail women’s careers), ensuring fair wages and labor rights, and

improving access to capital for women entrepreneurs. The United States is

notably one of the few developed countries without a national paid maternity

leave – addressing this gap (through legislation like the proposed FAMILY Act)

would greatly support working women. The current administration has also

focused on boosting the minimum wage and tipped wage (which

disproportionately affect women in service jobs) and supporting caregiving

infrastructure as part of economic plans. Globally, microfinance programs have

famously empowered millions of women to start small businesses (e.g.,

Grameen Bank in Bangladesh). Larger-scale efforts, such as the U.S. Gender

Equity and Equality Action Fund established in 2021, direct foreign aid to

women’s economic security programs worldwidebidenwhitehouse.archives.gov. Mentoring

and networking programs (like Goldman Sachs’ 10,000 Women initiative or

local businesswomen’s associations) also strengthen women’s economic roles.

Ensuring workplace equity also means promoting women to leadership roles in

companies – some countries have mandated women on corporate boards

(e.g., France and California with 40% and 30% quotas respectively, though

enforcement varies). A diverse leadership leads to better business outcomes

and breaks stereotypes that top jobs are “for men.”

• Leadership Development and Role Models: Empowering women globally

also requires cultivating leadership skills and highlighting role models. This can

start young – for instance, schools and universities can encourage girls to take

on leadership positions, debate, and public speaking. Civil society and

governments are supporting programs to train the next generation of women

leaders (such as leadership academies, fellowship programs, and peer

networks). In the U.S., organizations like Emerge America train women to run

for public office, and Lean In circles (inspired by Sheryl Sandberg’s initiative)

provide support for professional women aiming for management roles.

Internationally, exchange programs and scholarships (like the Fulbright

program or the U.S. State Department’s TechWomen) empower women from

around the world with education and global networks. Just as important

is celebrating female role models in all fields – from heads of state to

scientists and athletes. Seeing women succeed in various arenas combats

stereotypes and motivates younger women and girls to aspire high. Media

campaigns and public recognition (e.g., awards, profiles) of women achievers

 

82

are simple but effective tools to shift cultural perceptions about women’s

capabilities.

• Community and Cultural Change Initiatives: Lasting empowerment will also

come from changing mindsets and social norms at the community level. Thus,

strategies include engaging men and boys as allies in gender equality (through

education campaigns about respectful relationships and shared household

responsibilities), working with religious and traditional leaders to reinterpret

cultural norms that have limited women, and using media to portray women in

empowering roles. For example, some development programs work with entire

villages to abandon female genital mutilation or child marriage, emphasizing

community dialogue led by respected local women. In the United States,

movements like #HeForShe encourage men in workplaces and universities to

champion gender equity. Additionally, promoting women’s rights in areas like

reproductive health (access to contraception, etc.) allows women to make life

choices that enable them to pursue education and careers, which in turn

strengthens their agency. Changing culture is a slower, diffuse process, but it

underpins all the other reforms – laws and policies are most effective when

society broadly supports the idea of women as equals.

• Institutionalizing Gender-Focused Policy: Governments can empower

women by making gender equality a sustained priority across all agencies. The

U.S. recently created a White House Gender Policy Council to coordinate

federal efforts on gender issues and ensure accountability on the National

Gender Strategybrookings.edu. This kind of institutional mechanism helps integrate a

“gender lens” in policy-making – for instance, analyzing how a budget or a

new law might impact women differently and adjusting accordingly. Other

countries have similar bodies (ministries or departments of women’s affairs,

gender equality task forces, etc.). Internationally, continuing to fund and

support UN Women and other multilateral initiatives keeps women’s

empowerment on the global agenda. Donor countries like the U.S. are

increasing aid targeting women and girls – for example, in 2023 President

Biden announced the largest-ever U.S. budget allocation for global gender

equality and women’s economic empowerment programs donortracker.org. These

investments finance everything from girls’ education in Africa to women’s

political participation training in Asia. By institutionalizing support and

funding, governments signal that empowering women is not a one-time

project but a permanent commitment.

In applying these strategies, the United States has a dual role: advancing gender equality domestically and supporting it worldwide through diplomacy and development. Domestically, there have been positive steps such as appointing a diverse cabinet (with a record number of women), strengthening workplace harassment protections, and pushing for family-friendly policies. The Biden-Harris administration’s National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality (2021) outlines a

 

83

comprehensive plan touching on economic security, health, gender-based violence,

and equity for women of color and LGBTQ+ peoplebrookings.edubrookings.edu. For example, the administration launched a U.S. Strategy on Global Women’s Economic Security in 2023 to guide foreign assistance in empowering women entrepreneurs and workers

abroad brookings.edu. These are promising frameworks, but implementation will be key – and advocates note that progress must accelerate to meet persistent gaps.

 

Ultimately, empowering women is a multifaceted endeavor requiring legal, economic, educational, and social change. The payoff, however, is immense. When women are empowered, families prosper, communities are healthier, economies grow faster,

and peace is more enduringcfr.orgweforum.org. As the world has come to recognize these truths, the momentum behind women’s empowerment has never been stronger. By continuing to implement and expand the strategies above – and by ensuring men join as partners in the effort – we move closer to a future where women everywhere can fully exercise their rights, talents, and leadership for the betterment of all.

 

84

US Political Polarization and

Immigrant Scapegoating: Causes

and Solutions

 

Historical Roots of Polarization

U.S. political parties only began to sort into sharply contrasting camps in the mid-20th century. For most of the 19th and early 20th centuries, major issues (slavery, Populism, labor vs. capital) divided the nation, and many periods saw broad

bipartisan consensus (for example, on foreign policy after WWII)brookings.edu. That changed with the 1960s civil-rights realignment: as Democrats embraced civil rights, they “lost their old Southern base” and consolidated support in liberal northern states, while the GOP shed its moderate Northeastern wing and became “anchored in

the South and West,” growing more conservativebrookings.edu. In other words, longstanding regional/ideological coalitions unraveled, leading each party’s base to become more homogeneous. By the 2000s this sorting was complete – as one study notes, congressional Democrats and Republicans now have “almost no ideological

overlap”brookings.edu. In short, the legacy of the civil rights era and subsequent realignments has left today’s parties sharply divided along race, region, and values.

 

Contemporary Drivers of Polarization

In recent decades, several new factors have entrenched these divides. Media and technology play a major role: the explosion of cable TV, talk radio, and especially social media allows people to “seek each other out” online and be exposed almost

entirely to ideologically congenial newsbrookings.edubrookings.edu. Surveys show that Americans increasingly choose news sources by political preference (for example, conservative

viewers favor Fox News while liberals favor NPR and the New York Times) brookings.edu. News outlets also often exaggerate conflict because “acrimony and strident rhetoric

make good copy,” which reinforces the sense of a bitter divide brookings.edu. Social-media algorithms and echo chambers further amplify extreme viewpoints and personal grievances, making ordinary citizens more partisan over time.

 

Economic and cultural shifts have reinforced polarization. Economic inequality has grown since the 1980s, generating anxieties among those who feel “left behind.” Globalization and automation hollowed out manufacturing and blue-collar jobs,

85

fueling resentment in rural and small-town America. Many of these voters have been drawn into politics by populist messages blaming immigrants and global elites for their economic pain. Meanwhile, cultural issues – religion, gun rights, abortion, and attitudes toward race and identity – have become sharp fault lines, with secular/liberal Americans on one side and religious/conservative Americans on the other. Religion, in particular, now correlates more strongly with party: frequent churchgoers tend to be Republican, while secular voters tend to be Democratic

brookings.edu.

 

Electoral structures and party strategies have also magnified polarization. Gerrymandering: After the 2010 census, many state legislatures aggressively redrew district maps in their own favor. As Brookings scholars note, in earlier decades dozens of seats might swing between parties each election, but in the 2000s the number of competitive U.S. House districts plummeted (by 2004 only about

6% of seats were truly in play)brookings.edu. Modern mapping technology makes it easy to create extremely safe “one-party” districts. In such districts, the real contests are primary elections among hard-liners, so candidates cater to the partisan base rather

than the centerbrookings.edu. Primaries: Direct primaries (especially closed ones) have grown more important and tend to be dominated by activists. With turnout often below 20%, candidates who win primaries must appeal to small, ideologically intense

factions, pushing them away from the median voterbrookings.edu. On the Republican side, the number of congressional primaries has risen steeply, empowering the most

conservative activistsbrookings.edu. These forces combine: partisan maps plus hard-line primaries produce congressional delegations with few moderates, locking in ideological extremes.

• Cues from Leaders: Tight election margins (e.g. electoral disputes in 2000 and

2016) have incentivized each side to fight fiercely. When elections hinge on a

few swing votes, both parties often turn to aggressive tactics (legal challenges,

disinformation, dramatic pledges) to eke out every possible edge brookings.edu

brookings.edu. Political norms have eroded: tactics like holding up judicial

appointments or refusing bipartisan cooperation – once rare – are now

common, heightening mutual distrustbrookings.edu.

• Technology and Mobilization: Campaigns and interest groups use big data

and social media to micro-target voters with tailored, polarizing messages. As

Brookings observes, the “revolution in communications” allows ideologues to

organize and proselytize online with unprecedented efficiencybrookings.edu.

Smartphones and social apps have increased exposure to political content

(often negative or sensational) and lowered the barriers to viral conspiracy

theories.

 

86

Table 1: Comparative Reforms to Mitigate Polarization. Below are sample strategies (some used abroad) for reducing partisan fragmentation.

Reform/Strategy Description Example

Iowa, Arizona, Utah – bipartisan

Nonpartisan Independent commissions draw electoral maps, panels; Canada, UK use neutral

Redistricting reducing “safe seats.” commissionsbrookings.edu.

Open or top-two primaries (and ranked-choice California (top-two), Alaska/NWS

Open/Ranked voting) encourage candidates to appeal to (ranked-choice), Australia (instant Primaries broader electorate rather than base. runoff).

Many democracies cap donations;

Campaign Finance Limiting “dark money” and foreign influence e.g., France limits individual Reform can reduce extreme negative ads. contributions.

Ireland’s citizens’ assemblies on

Civic Education & Curriculum on civics/media literacy and sensitive issues (abortion, climate) Dialogue programs for cross-partisan dialogue. fostered consensus.

Fact-checking and transparency rules (e.g. EU’s Digital Services Act forces content

Media disclosure for online ads) to combat moderation; UK’s Ofcom imposes Accountability disinformation. impartiality rules.

 

Approaches to Reducing Polarization

Addressing polarization requires both institutional reforms and civic initiatives. No single fix will suffice, but scholars and policymakers suggest multiple strategies:

• Electoral and Institutional Reform: Reducing gerrymanders is often cited as

a key step. Several states (e.g. Iowa, Arizona, Utah, Washington) have

created independent redistricting commissions to draw fair mapsbrookings.edu.

Early results show more competitive elections and fewer guaranteed safe seats.

(By contrast, most countries do not redraw districts every ten years in the

hyper-partisan way the U.S. does; foreign models like proportional

representation or commission-based maps could be studied and emulated

brookings.edu.) Similarly, moving to open primaries or ranked-choice voting can

force candidates to appeal beyond the base. States like Alaska and California

have experimented with these systems, and Australia’s instant-runoff voting

for parliament tends to produce more moderate coalition governments.

Reforming campaign finance (e.g. public financing, donation limits) could also

reduce candidates’ reliance on extreme donors.

• Media and Technology: Acknowledging the role of social media, many

experts urge greater regulation of online platforms. (For example, a Brookings

report recommends empowering regulators to enforce a “code of conduct” for

 

87

social media to curb misinformation and incendiary content.)

Encouraging media literacy education in schools can help citizens recognize

bias and fact-check partisan claims. Fact-checking organizations and bipartisan

journalism (with clear labeling of opinion vs. news) can counteract echo

chambers. Congress and the FTC have explored rules for political ad

transparency online. More controversially, some propose requiring algorithms

to expose users to cross-cutting viewpoints, or taxing political micro-targeting.

• Civic Engagement and Dialogue: Strengthening civic institutions can bridge

divides. Programs that bring together citizens from different backgrounds to

deliberate on common issues (so-called “citizen assemblies” or local

“polarization reduction” groups) have had success abroad. For example, in

Ireland a series of citizens’ assemblies allowed ordinary people to recommend

reforms on abortion and climate policy, leading to broad consensus and major

reforms. In the U.S., nonprofits like Braver Angels organize workshops where

Democrats and Republicans find personal common ground. Expanding

nonpartisan civic education and service (e.g. national service programs, inter-

state exchange programs) could foster mutual understanding across red-blue

lines. Institutionalizing dialogue (for instance, bipartisan commissions on major

issues, or “Republican-Democrat summit” traditions) might also temper the

zero-sum mindset.

• Economic and Social Policies: Since some polarization stems from real social

divisions, policies that ease inequality and strengthen the middle class may

reduce resentments. This includes support for healthcare, education, and

worker retraining programs that benefit people of all political stripes.

Addressing the roots of anxiety – such as urban-rural income gaps or regional

job declines – could undercut populist appeals. Finally, actively promoting

inclusive national narratives (e.g. patriotism that acknowledges diversity) can

shift attitudes toward compromise.

Table 2: International Examples of Polarization-Reduction (success varies by context)

Country/Region Strategy Note/Result

Multi-party coalitions & Grand coalitions (major parties governing together)

Germany consensus norms diffuse extremes. Strong federalism and party discipline.

Mixed-member proportional Adopted MMP in 1990s, leading to broad coalitions and

New Zealand system (MMP) less winner-take-all politics.

Preferential voting (ranked Requires major parties to court second preferences;

Australia ballots) reduces incentive for extreme appeals.

Mandatory civic education and High social trust and trust in media; lower income

Nordic Countries robust social safety nets inequality correlates with higher cross-ideological trust.

 

88

Country/Region Strategy Note/Result

Taiwan/South Truth and Reconciliation After authoritarian periods, commissions helped heal Korea Commissions polarized historical grievances (though success is mixed).

 

Immigrant Scapegoating by Trump (2016–2025)

Donald Trump’s rhetoric and policies have notably demonized immigrants. From his 2015 campaign onward he portrayed immigrants as the source of America’s problems, and he doubled down on this narrative both as president (2017–2021) and as the 2024 Republican nominee.

• Presidency (2016–2020): Trump frequently labeled undocumented

immigrants as criminals and threats. At campaign rallies and policy speeches

he blamed them for violent crime, drug trafficking, and economic ills. For

example, a mid-2017 rally in Ohio saw him describe illegal-immigrant gang

members as “animals” who “slice and dice” victims and “bring ... drugs,

violence [and] bloodshed” to American townshrw.org. Human Rights Watch

condemned this as “dangerous scapegoating,” noting that Trump’s words

painted immigrants as outsiders “responsible for violent crime and deep

societal problems”hrw.org. The administration’s policies reflected this worldview: it

enacted a travel ban on nationals from several countries, instituted “zero

tolerance” family-separation at the southern border, and expanded aggressive

ICE deportations. In practice, ICE enforcement under Trump “made little

distinction between people with no criminal records and dangerous gang

members,” as the agency itself admittedhrw.org. Tens of thousands of mostly

nonviolent migrants – including asylum seekers and visa overstayers – were

detained or deported. These measures and narratives were politically

calculated. They energized his base by tapping into fears about crime and

terrorism, and they diverted attention from other issues. Racially tinged

language (“invasion,” “drug lords,” etc.) also played as dog whistles to

nationalist and anti-immigrant sentiments.

• 2024 Campaign: As Trump ran again, he continued these themes. In a

September 2024 rally in Savannah, he spent much of an “economic

development” speech attacking immigrants. The Guardian reported that he

repeatedly “blame[d] immigrants for everything from fentanyl overdoses to

crime and taking Americans’ jobs”theguardian.com. He told the crowd that

undocumented immigrants were “responsible for myriad ills” in the country

theguardian.com . Such claims – often fact-checked as false – were aimed at exciting

supporters. Trump’s 2024 platform similarly emphasized a massive border wall

and deportations: he has promised to “close the border” entirely and to carry

out the “largest deportation effort in U.S. history”reuters.com.

 

89

• 2025 Developments: Even before a potential second term, Trump escalated

the rhetoric. On January 19, 2025 – the eve of his scheduled inauguration – he

addressed thousands at a “Make America Great Again” rally in Washington. He

vowed that “by the time the sun sets tomorrow, the invasion of our country

will have come to a halt”reuters.com. He repeated his pledge to remove “millions” of

undocumented immigrants from the U.S.reuters.com. Reuters noted his promise of

a sweeping crackdown and the largest-ever mass deportation. This shows that

even after four years out of office, the strategy of framing immigrants as an

existential threat remains central to his message.

These tactics rely on simple, fear-based appeals. Immigrants – especially Latin American and Muslim newcomers – are painted as outsiders undermining American security, culture, or economy. Statements like “they’re taking your jobs” or calling migrants “vermin” are meant to stir anger. By contrast, more nuanced factors (e.g. corporate interests hiring cheaper labor, or domestic crime) are downplayed or ignored. The political motivation is clear: scapegoating a vulnerable group unites a core constituency, distracts from complex policy failures, and creates an enemy image that can justify harsh measures.

 

*Image: Migrants from Central America embrace after crossing into the United States (U.S.– Panama border, 2024). This illustrates that many asylum-seekers are families fleeing danger, not criminals. (Source: Human Rights Watch)

 

90

Approaches to Countering Immigrant Scapegoating

Combating anti-immigrant sentiment involves reshaping narratives and policies. Broadly, solutions focus on education, inclusion, and fair policy enforcement:

• Fact-based Public Messaging: Governments and media can highlight the

positive contributions of immigrants. For example, official reports and think-

tank analyses show that immigrants often pay more in taxes than they

consume in public services over the long term, and that they create jobs by

starting businesses. Public awareness campaigns (akin to past efforts on HIV or

trade facts) can debunk myths. Media outlets and educators should emphasize

stories of immigrant families, veterans, and entrepreneurs to humanize

immigrants. (For instance, in some Latin American countries migrating to the

U.S., children reuniting at the border reinforce that many migrants are family-

oriented refugees, not the “invasion” portrayed in rhetoric.)

• Inclusive Integration Policies: When newcomers are well integrated,

scapegoating tends to diminish. This means investing in language and civics

classes, education, and job training for immigrants – a practice used in

countries like Germany and Canada. Germany’s Integrationskurse (integration

courses) include German language and cultural orientation to help migrants

assimilate, which many experts cite as a model. Canada’s official

multiculturalism policy, which provides settlement services and encourages

expression of cultural identity within a Canadian framework, is often pointed to

as helping maintain social cohesion (public opinion on immigration remains

more positive there than in many European countries). Making legal

immigration more accessible and providing clear pathways to citizenship (for

example, for high-skilled workers or long-term residents) can also reduce

underground flows and remove the sense of permanent “otherness.”

• Community Engagement and Enforcement: Policies should build trust

between immigrant communities and authorities. For example, “sanctuary city”

policies protect immigrant cooperation with police by keeping local law

enforcement separate from federal immigration enforcement; law enforcement

officials argue this increases crime reporting and safety. Tough border

enforcement can be paired with due process for asylum-seekers so that the

public sees a balance of security and compassion, reducing fear. It is also

important to strictly enforce laws against hate crimes and hate speech: many

European democracies criminalize inflammatory scapegoating (Germany bans

Nazi-like language, for instance). Denouncing high-profile scapegoaters legally

can set a norm that immigrant-bashing is unacceptable.

• Grassroots and Cultural Efforts: Civic groups and religious organizations

often bridge divides. Dialogues between native-born and immigrant

communities – in churches, mosques, or civic halls – can dispel rumors and

build empathy. Schools can teach the history of immigration and its role in

91

America’s development. Media diversity helps too: having immigrant voices in

newsrooms and on public broadcasts provides alternative viewpoints. Policing

the internet to remove clearly false rumors (e.g. that 98% of immigrants

commit violent crime, etc.) can slow hateful viral narratives.

Table 3: International Examples of Combating Xenophobia

Country/Strategy Description Example

Integration courses + strict hate Provides free language classes; Strafgesetzbuch §130

Germany speech laws penalizes incitement.

Official multiculturalism + skills Emphasizes immigrant contributions; high public

Canada immigration (points system) support.

Local integration programs + social Municipal “welcome programs” for refugees; broad

Sweden/Norway trust policies social welfare lessens competition fears.

Bilingual/bicultural education + Immigrants take civics/language tests; success is

Malaysia/Singapore compulsory integration exams debated but formalized.

Government emphasizes overseas Filipino workers’

Philippines Global diaspora narrative remittances, countering stigma.

 

Overall, reducing polarization and countering scapegoating both require restoring accurate, empathetic political discourse. In polarization’s case, that means institutional checks (like fair districts and open primaries) and a culture of moderation. In the immigration debate, it means replacing fear-based myths with facts and human stories, and enacting fair policies that treat immigrants with dignity. Both challenges benefit from civic engagement and leadership that rewards unity over division.

 

92

Democracy Index: Norway vs.

United States – A Comparative

Analysis

Note from the editor:

This overview shows data from 2023. Norway tops the list at number 1, while the United States is down to 29th place. After Trump came back to power in the United States in 2025, the country has quickly fallen further down the list.

 

Overview of the Democracy Index and Rankings

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) publishes an annual Democracy Index that scores countries (0–10) across five categories – electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil

libertieseconomist.com. Based on these scores, nations are classified as “full democracies” (scores 8.01–10), “flawed democracies” (6.01–8.00), “hybrid

regimes”, or “authoritarian regimes”worldpopulationreview.com. In the most recent index (2023), Norway ranks #1 with an overall score of 9.81 (the highest in the world),

making it the top-rated full democracyindvstrvs.orgworldpopulationreview.com. By contrast, the United States scores 7.85 (ranked 29th globally), classifying it as a flawed

democracyworldpopulationreview.com. The sections below explain why Norway tops the index and compare its performance to that of the United States, highlighting key differences in each category.

 

Norway – Why It Ranks #1 in Democracy

Norway has been the world’s highest-ranked democracy for years, owing to

exceptionally strong performance in all five index categoriesindvstrvs.org. It consistently scores near the maximum in each aspect of democratic governance. Key factors contributing to Norway’s top ranking include:

• Electoral Process and Pluralism: Norway’s elections are free, fair, and

inclusive, with a high degree of pluralism. It employs proportional

representation, ensuring that multiple parties are represented in the Storting

(parliament). There are no significant barriers to voting or political

candidacy, and electoral integrity is well protected. As a result, Norway earned

a indvstrvs.orgworldpopulationreview.com perfect 10.00/10 in this category. (By

 

93

comparison, Freedom House also notes that Norwegian elections are fully

free and power regularly alternates between parties in governmentfreedomhouse.org.)

• Functioning of Government: The Norwegian government

operates efficiently and transparently, with high public trust in institutions

and low levels of corruption. Consensus-based politics and coalition

governance are common, leading to effective policy-making and

implementation. Norway scored about 9.64/10 on government functioning

d1qqtien6gys07.cloudfront.net, one of the highest scores globally. This reflects a well-

functioning system with strong checks and balances, accountability, and public

confidence in governance.

• Political Participation: Citizen participation in Norway’s democracy is robust

and widespread. Voter turnout is typically high (around 75–80% in recent

national electionsfreedomhouse.org), and there is broad engagement in civic and

political life. Both men and women, and various social groups, are actively

involved in politics, whether through voting, party membership, or public

debate. Norway received a perfect 10.00/10 for political participationindvstrvs.org

worldpopulationreview.com, indicating that political engagement is near-universal and

accessible.

• Political Culture: Norway exhibits a strong democratic political culture,

meaning that public attitudes overwhelmingly support democracy and

reject authoritarian alternatives. There is high societal trust and acceptance of

core democratic values such as tolerance, pluralism, and respect for the rule of

law. Surveys find minimal appetite in Norway for non-democratic governance

(e.g. military rule or strongman leaders). Accordingly, Norway

scores 10.00/10 on political cultureindvstrvs.orgworldpopulationreview.com – a reflection of

Norwegians’ deep commitment to democratic norms and institutions.

• Civil Liberties: Norwegians enjoy extensive civil liberties and protections for

fundamental rights. Freedoms of expression, association, religion, and

assembly are well-respected. The press is free and independent, and civil

society organizations operate without undue restrictions. Law enforcement

generally respects due process and individual rights. Norway

scored d1qqtien6gys07.cloudfront.net 9.41/10 in civil liberties, among the highest in the

world. (For context, Freedom House rates Norway as “Free”, highlighting that

civil liberties are respected and independent media and NGOs hold the

government to accountfreedomhouse.org.) The slightly non-perfect score in this

category may reflect minor issues (for example, Norway has laws against hate

speech that balance free expression with protecting minorities), but overall civil

freedoms in Norway are exemplary.

In sum, Norway’s democracy is exceptional across the board. It is a “full

democracy” worldpopulationreview.com with an overall score of 9.81 out of 10. This indicates that Norway has almost no democratic deficits: its elections are fully free and fair, its governance is effective, citizen participation and political trust are very high, and

 

94

individual liberties are strongly protected. These strengths explain why Norway

remains the top-ranked country in the Democracy Indexindvstrvs.org.

 

Comparison: Norway vs. the United States

Despite both being long-established democracies, Norway and the United States diverge significantly in their Democracy Index scores and rankings. The United States is rated lower in every category, reflecting certain democratic challenges not present in Norway. The table below summarizes the latest Democracy Index (2023) scores for key metrics in Norway and the U.S. side by side:

Democratic Indicator Norway (Score) United States (Score)

Overall Score 9.81 (Rank 1)worldpopulationreview.com 7.85 (Rank 29)worldpopulationreview.com

Regime Classification Full Democracyworldpopulationreview.com Flawed Democracyworldpopulationreview.com

Electoral Process & Pluralism 10.00worldpopulationreview.com 9.17worldpopulationreview.com

Functioning of Government 9.64d1qqtien6gys07.cloudfront.net 6.43worldpopulationreview.com

Political Participation 10.00worldpopulationreview.com 8.89worldpopulationreview.com

Political Culture 10.00worldpopulationreview.com 6.25worldpopulationreview.com

Civil Liberties 9.41d1qqtien6gys07.cloudfront.net 8.53worldpopulationreview.com

 

Table: Democracy Index 2023 scores for Norway and the United States across key

categories. Sources: EIU Democracy Index 2023d1qqtien6gys07.cloudfront.networldpopulationreview.com.

 

As shown above, Norway outperforms the United States on every metric. Both countries hold regular elections and uphold core democratic institutions, but the magnitude of differences in scores highlights how much more consolidated Norway’s democracy is compared to the U.S. Below are the main differences in democratic development between the two countries, corresponding to each category:

• Electoral Process and Pluralism: Free and fair elections are a hallmark in both

nations, but Norway’s electoral system ensures broader representation.

Norway uses nationwide proportional representation, resulting in multiparty

inclusion and few wasted votes, which contributes to its 10/10 score. The

United States, with a 9.17/10 in this category, still has a strong electoral

process but faces issues that Norway largely avoids. For example, the U.S.

95

presidential elections are influenced by the Electoral College (which can

diverge from the popular vote) and partisan gerrymandering in legislative

districts, which can skew representation. Additionally, voting rights in the U.S.

have some friction (e.g. varying ID laws, fewer viable parties), whereas

Norway’s system makes voting straightforward and highly accessible. These

factors give Norway a slight edge in electoral integrity and pluralism

worldpopulationreview.comworldpopulationreview.com.

• Functioning of Government: This is one of the biggest gaps between the two

countries. Norway’s government functions with a high degree of efficiency,

consensus, and public confidence (score 9.64), while the U.S. score is much

lower ( worldpopulationreview.com 6.43 ). In Norway, coalition governments and cross-party

cooperation are common, and there is strong accountability with relatively

low corruption. In contrast, the U.S. has struggled with political gridlock and

polarization – for instance, frequent deadlocks between the executive and

legislature, government shutdowns, and partisan conflicts that hinder policy-

making. Public trust in the U.S. federal government is comparatively low, and

concerns about lobbyist influence and transparency persistaxios.com. According

to the EIU, issues like dysfunctional governance, lack of accountability, and

partisan division undermine the functioning of government in the U.S.axios.com,

explaining why the U.S. falls into the “flawed” category. Norway’s ability to

implement decisions effectively and maintain public trust stands in stark

contrast to these challenges.

• Political Participation: Both countries have an engaged citizenry, but Norway

achieves a perfect 10 while the U.S. scores 8.89worldpopulationreview.com. Norway’s

higher mark reflects slightly higher and more universal voter

participation and civic engagement. Voting in Norway is easy and turnout is

consistently high (around 78% in recent elections) with minimal barriers to

participation. The United States has also seen improved political participation

in recent years – notably, the 2020 U.S. election had the highest turnout in

over a century (about 66% of eligible voters) and overall U.S. participation

levels are among the highest in the world freedomhouse.orgindvstrvs.org. In fact, the EIU

noted North America’s political engagement (driven by the U.S.) remains at

a indvstrvs.org world-leading level of 8.89. However, the U.S. still lags Norway due

to factors like lower turnout in midterm elections, socio-economic disparities

in voting rates, and obstacles such as voter registration hurdles. Norway’s

culture of participation is more uniformly strong, whereas in the U.S.

participation, while vigorous, is not as universal.

• Political Culture: This category reveals a stark difference: Norway scores 10.0,

versus worldpopulationreview.com 6.25 for the U.S.. Political culture measures the

population’s support for democracy and the degree of polarization or

extremism in society. Norway’s perfect score indicates an almost universal

commitment to democratic values and acceptance of the democratic process.

The United States, on the other hand, has experienced eroding consensus on

 

96

democratic norms. Public trust in institutions and elections has declined in

the U.S., and surveys show a segment of Americans express openness to

undemocratic alternatives or conspiracy theories (for example, questioning

election legitimacy)axios.com. The violent contestation of the 2020 election

outcome (the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021) and ongoing polarization are

symptomatic of a political culture under strain. The EIU notes that low social

cohesion, deep partisan polarization, and growing cynicism in the U.S.

have hurt its political culture scoreaxios.com. In Norway, by contrast, there is broad

social trust and acceptance of political outcomes, so such challenges are

minimal or absent. This difference in political culture is a major factor

distinguishing a “full” democracy like Norway from a “flawed” democracy like

the U.S.

• Civil Liberties: Both Norway and the United States uphold a wide range of

civil liberties, but Norway’s safeguards are slightly stronger in practice. Norway

scores 9.41 in this category, ahead of the U.S.’s 8.53d1qqtien6gys07.cloudfront.net

worldpopulationreview.com. In Norway, freedoms of speech, religion, association, and the

press are not only legally protected but also highly respected in society. The

media environment in Norway is less polarized and generally free of the

intense partisan pressure seen in the U.S. The United States also

constitutionally guarantees core liberties and has a vibrant free press, but

certain issues lower its score: for example, higher levels of gun violence and

incarceration, debates over mass surveillance and privacy (e.g. post-9/11

security measures), and recent attempts at book bans or restrictions at the

state level can signal stresses on civil liberties. Additionally, during crises like

the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. saw contentious disputes over balancing

public health and individual rights. Norway managed such issues with high

trust and compliance, maintaining a strong civil liberty record. Overall, while

both countries remain free societies, Norway’s civil liberties are marginally

more comprehensive, contributing to its superior score.

 

Conclusion

In summary, Norway stands as the world’s strongest democracy in the EIU index due to its exemplary performance across all democratic dimensions – from flawless elections and highly effective governance to an engaged public, a deeply rooted democratic culture, and extensive freedoms. The United States, although a longtime democracy with solid institutions, falls short in several areas (notably in government functioning and political culture) and is thus rated a “flawed democracy.” Norway’s experience highlights the value of broad political consensus, social trust, and inclusive institutions in sustaining a full democracy. The United States, by comparison, faces ongoing challenges such as partisan polarization, lower institutional trust, and policy gridlock that have hindered its democratic development

 

97

in recent yearsaxios.com. Nevertheless, the U.S. continues to have strengths like competitive elections and active civic participation, which could help it improve its democratic health if reforms address its shortcomings.

 

By examining the Democracy Index’s detailed scores, we clearly see that Norway outpaces the United States on every core metric of democracy – a gap that underlines the importance of not just having democratic institutions on paper, but ensuring they function well and enjoy public legitimacy. Norway’s top ranking reflects a democracy that is truly comprehensive and resilient, setting a benchmark for other nations, while the U.S. ranking reveals areas where even an

established democracy must continually strive to strengthen its foundations indvstrvs.org

worldpopulationreview.com.

 

98

Comparison of the Nordic Model vs

the United States

Note from the editor:

In my opinion Happiness and Quality of Life (which is the last point in this chapter) is the most important indicator for a society. It has been said that the measure of a good society is how well it takes care of the "weakest" in a society. Here, the Nordic countries score high, and this may be an important reason why the Nordics are repeatedly

measured among the happiest countries in the world. Here is a short video that explains a little about why the countries in the North (with a focus on Finland) score so high.

 

Economic Performance

The Nordic economies (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland) are small but wealthy, with GDP per capita levels comparable to high-income countries like the U.S. In 2023, Norway’s GDP per capita was about $88,000 – one of the highest in the

world – while Sweden’s was around $55,000 and Finland’s about $53,000worldometers.info

worldometers.info. Denmark also ranks among the top economies with roughly $68,000 per

capita incomeworldometers.info. For comparison, the United States had a GDP per capita of

approximately worldometers.info $80,700 in 2023, falling between Norway’s exceptional level and the other Nordics. In other words, Norway (boosted by oil wealth) slightly outpaces the U.S. in output per person, while Sweden, Finland, and Denmark are somewhat lower, though still very affluent by global standards

worldometers.info.

 

Unemployment rates in the Nordic region tend to be low, akin to U.S. levels, except

in a couple of cases. Norway’s unemployment was only statista.com ~3.6% in 2023 –

virtually identical to the bls.gov 3.6% unemployment rate of the United States that year.

Denmark also managed low joblessness around statista.com 5.1% in 2023. Finland and

Sweden, however, saw higher unemployment at statista.comstatista.com 7 – 8% in 2023 (Sweden’s

was about 7.6% on averagestatista.com). Even so, these rates are not far above the broader European average, and Sweden’s spike owes partly to more immigrants and youth in the labor force. The U.S. labor market has been very tight recently, hitting

multi-decade low unemployment around 3.5–3.7%bls.gov, so by that measure America slightly led the Nordics except Norway. All Nordic countries have “flexicurity”-style labor policies that promote flexibility for employers to hire and fire, but with strong social safety nets to support workers (see Social Welfare section).

 

99

In terms of productivity, both the Nordics and the U.S. are highly productive economies. Norway in particular stands out with one of the world’s highest

outputs qery.no per hour worked , thanks in part to its capital-intensive oil sector. Indeed, OECD comparisons show Norway and Ireland at the top of labor productivity rankings (Norway’s GDP per hour was about 50% above the OECD

average in 2022)qery.no. The United States also has very high productivity – roughly $77–$80 in output per hour in recent estimates – placing it near the top of

OECD countries qery.no. Sweden, Denmark, and Finland have slightly lower productivity levels than the U.S. or Norway, but still above the OECD average (e.g. Sweden’s productivity is roughly on par with Germany’s) and have narrow productivity gaps across industries. Overall, all the Nordic economies are “advanced economies” with strong GDP per capita and productivity, fully in the same league as the U.S.

on these metricsoecdstatistics.blogoecdstatistics.blog.

 

Income and Wealth Inequality

A hallmark of the Nordic model is its low income inequality compared to most countries. After taxes and transfers, the Gini coefficient (where 0 = perfect equality, 1 = max inequality) in Nordic countries lies in the 0.25–0.30 range. For example,

Denmark’s Gini is about 0.28 and Finland’s 0.27 in recent yearscia.gov. Sweden and

Norway are only slightly higher (~0.28–0.30)cia.govcia.gov. In contrast, the United States has a much higher income inequality, with a Gini around 0.41 in 2022 (one of the

highest among developed nations)cia.gov. This means the U.S. income distribution is far more unequal – roughly the U.S. Gini is 10–15 points higher than in Sweden or

Denmark, indicating significantly greater income gapscia.govcia.gov. The difference reflects the redistributive policies of the Nordics: they use taxes and social benefits to compress after-tax income differences. By one estimate, the ratio of richest 10% to poorest 10% incomes is about 5:1 in the Nordics vs. 18:1 in the U.S. (OECD data). Consequently, poverty rates in Nordic countries are among the lowest in the OECD, while the U.S. has one of the highest relative poverty rates. In summary, Nordic societies are far more equal in income – a direct outcome of the Nordic model’s

emphasis on egalitarianism nber.org.