I think we are (in 2018) rubbing up against the link limitations of our current democratic systems, or maybe republic systems. Our current democracies generall

I think we are (in 2018) rubbing up against the link limitations of our current democratic systems, or maybe republic systems. Our current democracies generally meet the 19th century definitions of liberalism, in that the people select the government. But I think that in the modern mind, democratic systems (eg the elected people) are supposed to conduct the pure will of the people. We don't really like the idea of representative democracy, where representatives have minds (and interests) of their own. It doesn't help that democratic political systems are very mature, with well established and understood political dynamics (parties, etc.) driving most things. Imo, what people have in mind as a genuinely democratic system is more like direct democracy. Frighteningly, we still have strong modernist mentalities when it comes to politics. Most people argue from abstract justice, and assume efficacy (if they consider it at all) to be a byproduct of justice. IE if the system directly conducted the will of the people, stuff would also work better. Realistically, we have the technology now for direct democracy but almost no experience with it. I suspect we'll see attempts made in the next couple of decades. Anyway... I wonder if the Economist is influenced by the same sentiments, and have altered their view of what democracy is (or should be, idealistically).