By Jabir Deralla
I’m not entirely convinced that what follows will capture the attention of political leaders or party strategists. But I certainly hope that people — the voters who delegate power through the ballot box — will find these reflections meaningful. This is written for those trying to make sense of the increasingly complicated political landscape, and who want to navigate it with clarity, conscience, and democratic conviction.
This analysis examines four major political blocs vis-à-vis the core values of democracy — not just in what they say, but in what they do when in power.
My intention here is not to favor one political option over another within the democratic spectrum. This analysis is not limited to what parties do when they hold office, but also how they shape political culture, public discourse, and institutional behavior — whether in government or in opposition. The goal is to highlight the importance of consistency, accountability, and being true to declared values.
At the same time, I draw a clear line. Far-right, extremist, and militant political actors — those who openly undermine democratic norms and promote exclusion, violence, or authoritarianism — must not be treated as legitimate participants in a democratic system. They do not belong to the democratic spectrum, and their normalization is a danger we cannot afford to ignore.
In a time when democratic institutions face attacks both internally and externally, the question is not simply who governs, but how they govern — and whether they govern with integrity, responsibility, and respect for the people they claim to serve.
In this analysis, I focus on relatively broad reference points that shape political life across national, regional, and European contexts. These categories represent distinct ideological orientations, but also reveal how far politics has drifted from the values it claims to uphold.
Social democrats once stood as champions of social justice, public services, and fair distribution. Yet in recent years, many have retreated into technocratic governance or compromised their values for political survival in fragile coalitions.
Greens have emerged as an important voice for transformative change, especially on climate justice, ecological sustainability, inclusion, and participatory democracy. They often lead the conversation on human rights and ethical governance, particularly among younger and more urban segments of society. However, like other parties across the spectrum, they are not immune to contradictions. When ideals meet the realities of power, they too can fall short — whether through political inexperience, internal divisions, or compromises made in complex coalitions.
Center-right parties, rooted in liberal-conservative traditions, often uphold democratic norms and the rule of law. They typically prioritize economic stability and national identity, and approach social change cautiously. Some align with pluralism and European integration, while others drift toward nationalist rhetoric — especially when pressured on migration or minority rights.
Far-right nationalists and pan-populists present a much more disruptive force. They rely on identity politics, historical revisionism, and conspiracy-driven narratives to fuel division and resentment. Their platforms are often built on anti-immigrant, anti-minority, and anti-EU sentiment. While they claim to defend the “will of the people,” they routinely attack democratic institutions, suppress dissent, and promote exclusionary, authoritarian agendas.
Of course, not all political forces fit neatly into these categories. Liberal parties, often positioned between the social-democratic and center-right camps, tend to emphasize individual freedoms, market reforms, and institutional modernization. They are generally pro-European and rights-oriented, but often technocratic in governance and inconsistent on social equity.
Hybrid or populist ‘big tent’ movements have gained traction across many democracies. These actors often claim to transcend ideology and present themselves as flexible and “people-centered.” In practice, however, they blur or manipulate fundamental values for propaganda purposes. They promote hate and exclusion, and actively undermine accountability and democracy itself. They often mix progressive language with conservative instincts, and speak of democratic reform while simultaneously centralizing power. Their political fluidity may seem pragmatic, but it too often reflects a lack of core principles — leaving them open to authoritarian, ultranationalist, or opportunistic politics.
These increasingly popular in-between forces highlight the central question: When party lines blur, what remains is the test of values. No matter how a political force brands itself — liberal, reformist, progressive, or centrist — the true measure is how it upholds democracy, protects the vulnerable, and governs with integrity.
This is precisely why we need to look closely at the democratic compass itself — a set of universal values that should guide every political force, regardless of ideology. These values include human dignity, which demands that every person be treated with respect and protected from humiliation or abuse. Equality before the law ensures that justice is not reserved for the powerful, but applies equally to all, regardless of wealth, background, or identity. Personal and collective freedoms — of expression, assembly, belief, and association — are not privileges granted by governments, but rights that must be safeguarded at all times.
Inclusion and pluralism mean more than tolerance — they require active protection of diversity, ethnic and minority rights, and equal participation in public life. Justice goes beyond the courtroom; it encompasses fairness in opportunity, access to services, and freedom from discrimination. Transparency and accountability ensure that those in power are answerable to the people, not shielded by secrecy or impunity. The separation of religion and state is a cornerstone of democratic governance — it protects institutions from religious domination, prevents the politicization of faith, and ensures that no belief system overrides the rights and freedoms of others.
And finally, the rule of law is not merely about enforcing order — it is about upholding the principles that prevent the abuse of power and guarantee basic rights.
These values are not abstract ideals. They are the foundation of democratic life, the test of credibility in governance, and the baseline for trust between citizens and institutions. They are the true measure of whether a political force deserves public trust — not based on what is promised in manifestos, but on what is practiced when entrusted with power.[1]
Declared values are easy to print; lived values are harder to prove. Across the political spectrum, there is often a stark and uncomfortable distance between what parties promise and what they practice. Human rights, democracy, equality, and inclusion are common talking points — but once in power, these ideals often evaporate under pressure from populism, coalition bargaining, or fear of backlash.
Social democrats may trade social justice for managerial compromise. Center-right parties may downplay pluralism to appease conservative voters. Even greens can falter when ideals collide with realpolitik. Occasionally, parties rise above their programmes and surprise with courageous, inclusive decisions. But those are exceptions.
In the end, the integrity of democratic values must be judged not by what is written, but by what is defended — especially when it’s politically inconvenient.
True democracy is not judged by slogans or symbols, but by how it treats the vulnerable — the sick, the elderly, the excluded, the dissenters. A government’s stance on climate, education, disability, or secularism is not secondary — it is central to its democratic character. When we place these issues on the table, the contrast between democratic, social-democratic, green, center-right, and far-right ideologies becomes more than ideological. It becomes moral.
[1] See: Defending Democracy and Human Rights: Report and Policy Recommendations, 2025. https://defendingdemocracy.global/storage/2025/04/Defending-Democracy-publication-online.pdf
— Jabir Deralla
(pen name of Xhabir Memedi Deralla, used for writings in English)
Jabir Deralla is a writer, human rights defender, and democracy analyst. He writes on politics, disinformation, hybrid warfare, authoritarianism, and the future of democracy in Europe and beyond.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of any organization with which he is affiliated.
