Although I agree with quite a lot of what you have written, I would have to question some of it. I don't propose to go down the right v left definitions, we have been there before. I would query the assumption that countries are being disenfranchised. In some of the poorer ones that might be true, but it hardly can apply to a country such as the UK, one of the larger economies in the world. Individual governments have it in their power as to how they organise the distribution of wealth. You can have the low tax, low services model, or the higher tax better services model. This is the normal choice presented to the electorate in the UK, and because of various factors concerning where in the country you live, the low tax model wins some times, the higher tax model wins sometimes, usually after a period when people in the south see that services they expect are withdrawn. We currently are at one of the natural tipping point stages in this normal progression. The fact that at the last election there was no mandate for either model shows that despite rejecting the current bad services, the population were not ready to take the chance of going for what in the UK is a more extreme version of tax and spend. Many countries where the population enjoy a high standard of satisfaction with their lives do spend more on services. They do find that if they start with excessive spending the voters let them know. Because many countries are in the same situation as the UK , at a tipping point, the rise of alternative models are being looked at, hence the rise of different parties to the existing ones. Macron would never had come to power if either the two main parties could have offered the hope of life improving for the poorest. Individual parties as in the case of the Greens, although standing under the same banner are very different depending on which country they are in. It actually comes down to how well they can produce policies that seem to be be relevant to the moment.
