Efforts to restore democracy to the United States, a troubled, oil-rich former British colony with a history of political violence, may have suffered a serious setback this week after yet another chaotic presidential debate, some Americanists say.

Held in the relatively stable northeastern state of Pennsylvania on the eve of the 23rd anniversary of the country’s worst terrorist attack, the debate was a chance to showcase the democratic progress the country had made since the violent, shambolic elections and attempted coup nearly four years ago.

However, it got off to a less than stellar start. The three moderate candidates in the race – Jill Stein, Cornel West and Chase Oliver – were barred from participating. Instead, the contest pitted the two frontrunners: former President Donald Trump, the candidate of the far-white Republican Party, widely thought to be the political wing of white-Christianist militias, and Kamala Harris, the current vice president, who led a palace coup two months ago that forced the ageing, unpopular incumbent, President Joe Biden, to abandon his quest for re-election.

During the debate, moderators drawn from the US media, once considered one of the most vibrant in the region, struggled to get Trump and Harris to answer questions about their views and policies, and the session at times degenerated into name-calling, fearmongering and outright lying. The two candidates traded insults, incited anti-China sentiment, differed over women’s rights and whether the country is facing an invasion by hordes of violent, pet-eating criminal immigrants, and agreed on backing the genocidal regime in Israel. There was little articulation by either candidate of a coherent vision for the country.

Now with Americans watching the spectacle, unlikely to be impressed by the quality of leadership delivered by democracy, there are fears the country could resume its slide into autocracy. Before the debate, polls showed the two candidates locked in a dead heat. After the debate, the data show they are in fact deadlocked in a race to the bottom. It is indisputable that voters who watched the debate came away disillusioned by the choices they face. In a poll conducted immediately after the event, only 45 percent say they were left with a positive view of Harris, who many believe won the debate. Trump fared worse – only seen positively by 39 percent. In a sign of just how concerned elite Americans are about the declining faith in democracy, Taylor Swift, a local celebrity, took to social media immediately after the debate to endorse Harris and urge her fellow citizens not to give up hope but instead do research and make a choice.

Propping up democracy in the US has long been a vital priority for safeguarding global peace, given its linchpin status in the Caucasian bloc. Analysts say allowing autocracy to once again flourish in North America and in the ethnostates of sub-Scandinavian Europe could lead to yet another all-out Caucasian tribal conflict that would draw in the rest of the international community – a third world war.

Further raising the stakes, the Caucasian bloc is home to four rogue nuclear-armed nations – the US, United Kingdom, France and Russia – which are in violation of their commitment to disarm under Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There are concerns over what would happen should these weapons fall into the hands of white-wing Christianist groups.

In the coming weeks, the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) will begin in the nearby city of New York, and during the high-level week when heads of state take to the podium for the general debate, how to rebuild faith in democracy in the US is expected to be high on the agenda. Given the failure of the internationally recognised Biden regime to enact crucial electoral reforms to prevent a repeat of the 2020 fiasco, the UNGA may be the last chance for the world to help save the US from itself and put the long-suffering American people on a better path to peace and stability.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.