Liberal democracy is facing renewed pressure across much of the Western world. Political movements that openly question judicial independence, attack the media, or frame pluralism as weakness have gained traction. The challenge, as Cass Sunstein argued in his UBS Center Opinion lecture at the University of Zurich, is not that liberalism has failed. Rather, its opponents have become more effective at mobilizing fear, identity, and resentment – often faster and more forcefully than liberal institutions can respond.

Maura Wyler-Zerboni (Text) Ueli Christoffel (Images)

Courts, universities, and even independent regulators have increasingly been portrayed as enemies of “the people.” Legal instruments are framed not as safeguards, but as weapons. Such narratives can be found all over the world, where leaders maintain elections while systematically weakening checks and balances. Across contexts, the pattern is strikingly similar: distrust in institutions is cultivated deliberately, and liberal constraints on power are recast as obstacles to decisive leadership.

"More than at any time since the 1930s, liberalism is under pressure."

Sunstein’s central warning is that liberalism is often misunderstood in these debates. It is not a rigid ideology, nor a technocratic project detached from everyday concerns. At its core, liberalism is about protecting individuals from arbitrary power, through the rule of law, pluralism, and accountable government. What makes the current moment dangerous is that these foundations are rarely dismantled all at once. Instead, they are eroded gradually, often under the banner of efficiency, security, or popular will.

The overlooked defenders of liberal democracy

One of the most important – and least discussed – insights from Sunstein’s lecture concerned the institutions that quietly prevent democratic backsliding long before it becomes visible at the ballot box. Elections matter, but they are not enough. The most underestimated safeguard of liberal democracy, he argued, lies in professional, independent institutions: courts that apply the law without political instruction, and civil services that function regardless of who holds power.

"The civil service, these are heroes. They don’t end up in the history books."

These institutions rarely attract public attention. Judges who insist on due process or civil servants who slow down ill-conceived policies do not generate headlines. Yet precisely this “boring” professionalism is what makes liberal democracy resilient. Sunstein drew on his own experience in government to illustrate how career civil servants act as internal brakes when political pressure pushes toward legally or morally questionable decisions. They ensure continuity, institutional memory, and respect for rules even in moments of crisis.

The contrast to current developments is stark. In countries where courts are packed, prosecutors sidelined, or administrative agencies politicized, democratic decline accelerates quickly. Once trust in neutral institutions is lost, elections alone cannot compensate. Political competition turns into a zero-sum struggle, and the temptation to bend or bypass the law grows on all sides.

Why this matters now

The appeal of illiberal narratives lies in their simplicity. They promise order over procedure, identity over pluralism, and speed over deliberation. Liberalism, by contrast, often appears slow, legalistic, and unspectacular. But that is precisely its strength. The rule of law is designed to frustrate arbitrary power. Independent institutions exist to say “no” when necessary, even or especially when doing so is unpopular.

"The defining feature of liberalism is its youth, its energy and fierceness."

Sunstein’s message is therefore not nostalgic, but forward-looking. Liberal democracy does not need reinvention from scratch, nor does it need to abandon its institutional core in order to respond to contemporary challenges. What it does need is a renewed appreciation of the quiet work done by courts, regulators, and civil servants – and a political culture willing to defend them before they come under irreversible pressure. In times when fear and resentment travel faster than legal arguments, the survival of liberal democracy depends less on grand declarations than on the steady functioning of institutions that most citizens only notice once they are gone.