Alternativer Bildtext:

1), the arresting of "53 pro- democracy legislators" (paragraph 2) in Hong Kong and the rising unwillingness to be vaccinated due to random "assertions that have no basis in fact" (paragraph 3). The enumeration of such events, in which democracy faces opposition and barriers, emphasises the large scale pressure, which is being exerted on democratic orders. By supporting the named events with several official governmental reports, Hauge is able to illustrate his political and field-specific knowledge, lifting his credibility as an author. Therefore the tone of the first three paragraphs is very formal. Nevertheless he does not adapt a complete objective method of presenting the events and represents a critical position when he argues that "(...) European leaders (have been played) for fools" (paragraph 2) when they signed investment agreements with China. The author indirectly criticises commercial agreements with nations, which do not advocate democratic principles and he also refers to the unilateral benefits of the investment agreement for Hong Kong. In the following three paragraphs Hauge proceeds by referring to "global su eys" which "have demonstrated a growing loss of faith in demo among young people" (paragraph 5). The author makes an attempt to name further reasons indicating the doubtful prospects of democracy in order to evoke urgent and negative connotations of the future outlook. Similar to the 1 headline, William Hauge employs emotive nouns like "crisis" and "chaos" to draw the reader's attention. This pessimistic tone correlates with the portrayed and potential threat of "autocratic tendencies" which occur in India, Turkey and Sri Lanka. The following seven paragraphs focus more on possible solutions to ensure the stability of democratic orders rather than current issues. The author increasingly states his opinion. This switch is indicated by the use of the the personal pronoun "we" (e.g. paragraph 7), which also involves the reader on a personal and emotional basis. Hauge is able to give a positive outlook by creating a feeling of togetherness and in his opinion "Western nations should work towards finding solidarity on trade (...)" (paragraph 12). The style of writing does not only build an emotional bond, he also gives evidence for his point of view, which causes it to be easily comprehensible. He believes in the favourable consequences of "Joe Biden's election" (paragraph 10) but does not overstate the positive aspects. This conflict can be seen when Hauge mentions that "such challenges will be the work of decades" (paragraph 9) and "this is a vast and complex task" (paragraph 9). By referring to China as a "ruthless one-party system" (paragraph 12) in the second last paragraph, which (China) penalises other nations, the author is able to link back to the beginning of the comment, when he first introduced China and Hong Kong as a threat to democracy. This creates the image of a logical and transparent structure. At the end Hauge requests those "who love freedom" (paragraph 13) to support Biden. His final word can therefore be seen as a call for action, which is intended to appeal to the reader in order to strengthen democracy. The author puts emphasis on the breaking down of Western complacency, which also correlates with the headline. In conclusion, the comment "Democracy is in far greater peril than the complacent West realises" follows a clear structure. The fist six paragraphs are used to outline the current situation by stating several incidences of lacking democracy. This outline is followed by another seven paragraphs, which include the opinion of the author and presented solutions to tackle the impacts of political, economical and military dictatorships. Throughout the comment Hauge substantiates his point of view with current events and examples. In combination with the narrowed euphoric chances of Biden's presidency he employs a very formal and balanced approach of commenting on an ubiquitous issue. The major objective reflection of the uncertainty of democracy, although subjective arguments and criticism are presented, cause this article to be considered as a serious broadsheet newspaper. Taking into account the background of the author William Hague, as an active member of the British parliament, this supports the status of an credible article. 2 10