I have just finished reading Christian Egander Skov’s Folkeligt skal alt nu være. It is one of the most thoughtful, nuanced and balanced books I have read in a long time about a subject that has become surprisingly difficult to discuss: what binds a democratic society together. One of the book’s central arguments is that democracy depends on something deeper than constitutions, elections and the rule of law. Those institutions are indispensable, but they cannot sustain themselves. Democracy also presupposes a shared political community—citizens who recognise one another as belonging to the same civic culture and who therefore accept mutual obligations. Danish has a word for this: folkelighed. There is no precise English equivalent. Perhaps the closest expression is civic belonging. It is not folklore. It is not nationalism. And it is certainly not “blood and soil.” Rather, it describes the shared history, language, institutions, traditions and everyday practices that allow individuals to become part of a political community. It is something people actively choose to participate in and continuously create together. That distinction struck me. Like many others, I have largely grown up intellectually within a liberal tradition that celebrates individual freedom and autonomy. I continue to believe deeply in those values. But this book reminded me that individualism also has its limits. An individual can only flourish within a community that makes individual freedom possible in the first place. Freedom is not simply the absence of obligations. It also depends upon trust, shared norms and institutions that none of us could create alone. Reading the book also reminded me of Martin Buber’s I and Thou, which I wrote about some months ago. The two books are, of course, concerned with different questions. Buber explores the encounter between human beings, whereas Skov is interested in the foundations of democratic society. Yet I could not help noticing a common intuition running through both. Neither sees the individual as fully self-sufficient. For Buber, we become fully human through genuine relationships with other people. For Skov, liberal democracy depends upon citizens who are willing to become part of a shared civic community. In both cases, the I is not diminished by the we. Quite the opposite. The individual becomes more fully itself because it exists in relation to something beyond itself. Perhaps that is one of the enduring paradoxes of liberal democracy. We rightly celebrate individual liberty. Yet liberty cannot sustain itself indefinitely unless free individuals also choose to belong. We often think democracy begins with rights. Books like this remind me that it may begin even earlier—with the willingness to say we.

06/30/2026 16:43:42


nb


See More (10 posts)