Is Liberal Democracy Doomed?

Over the last two years, alarmist articles about the rise of autocracy have been regular features in Foreign Affairs, The Economist, major newspapers and books, Anne Applebaum’s Twilight of Democracy one of the latest. Earlier this month, an international affairs group to which I belong discussed the questions “Is liberal democracy in decline?” and ”To what degree should American foreign policy promote liberal democratic values?” In preparation for the discussion, I committed my thoughts to paper, in order to see if they made any sense.  Here is what I wrote:

Yes, liberal democracy is under threat.

But I am an optimist – albeit an anxious optimist; herein I argue that the threat is internal, temporal, and manageable.  I believe that liberal democracy has innate appeal and soon again will be on the upswing as autocracy and oligopoly show their innate weaknesses. My argument will be thought by some to be naïve and  idealistic; that I will be thought  insufficiently alarmed by the seductive appeal of simple, autocratic answers. But liberal democracy better fits basic human needs and desires than does any other form of government. Over time, it will prevail. Our present challenge is to strengthen confidence in it by reforms that demonstrate the superiority and responsiveness of our democratic republican system. Eleanor Roosevelt wrote in 1942: “If Democracy is to survive, it must be because it meets the needs of the people.”

First, what is a liberal democracy?

A liberal democracy is a country characterized: 

~ By citizens’ individual freedoms:

        to choose how and where to live,

        to aspire to whatever they fancy and are willing to strive for,

        to choose what to believe,

        to express themselves,

        to associate with others of their choosing, and

        to pursue their personal, emotional and material well-being.

        To have free and unfettered access to markets for their needs and wants. 

~ By citizens’ acknowledgment of their bonds with and responsibilities for fellow citizens, their

community, and their nation.

~ By a legislature representative of and selected by the citizenry in regularly scheduled elections, charged with promulgating laws and seeing that the costs of government are equitably shared among those receiving its services.

~ By rules and laws fairly and equally applied to all citizens and residents regardless of wealth, position, ethnicity or belief; citizens have access and freedom to appeal to courts for just and fair application of rules and laws.

~ By social mobility, a reflection of access to education and fairness of opportunity.

~ By protections of minority views from the dictates of a majority. By flourishing, multi-voiced,

independent journalism.

~ By a separation of powers -- judicial, legislative, domestic administrative and foreign relational -- under independent leadership with roles and limitations spelled out in charters, mission statements or constitutions so as to provide checks and balances on each other.

Anne Applebaum and Viktor Orban describe one-party governments with controlled legislatures and controlled “elections” (with pre-selected, loser opposition) as “Ill-liberal Democracies.” Such unitary states are in fact a mockery of democracy, most often a person rather than a party: United Russia is Putin; the CCP is Xi Jinping; Fidesz is Orban; the AK Parti is Erdogan. This model is how the Republicans decided to forego a platform in 2020 and crowned Trump to be the GOP. 

“Illiberal Democracy” does not exist.

It is an attempt to create something by labeling it when in fact an illiberal democracy is a nullity, a vacuum, an absence of the qualities of liberal democracy. In such governments, citizens are constrained from free expression and association by surveillance, intimidation, censorship and control of media; market access may be denied. 

In such governments, citizens’ communal responsibility is defined by the state, usually heavily weighted to subservience to the nation; 

~ a legislature is selected by a portion of the citizenry in controlled, pre-determined elections, which therefore represents only that portion of the citizenry, leaving others unrepresented; 

~ rules and laws are imposed unfairly and unevenly, with waivers and exemptions for privileged or favored classes;

~ legislative, judicial, administrative and diplomatic powers are concentrated in one person or a small cadre of people selected by the autocrat;  

~ lastly, in such governments, collective efficiency and effectiveness is valued above individual human needs.

What is the attraction of such governments?

Autocracies and oligarchies arise in response to fear, distress and distrust, confusion, and/or threat to material well-being and safety. They may be imposed by arms, as in Myanmar. Usually, however, the human need for assurance and confidence gives way to seeking out and granting power to an authority – an “I alone can solve it” -- be it a person or a guiding creed: what the leader says or imposes, what the book prescribes. (The book: the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, the Communist Manifesto, the tribal creation myth, whatever.) Currently, in these times of uncertainty and loss of confidence, of faltering progress in material well-being, of dramatic, uncontrollable change, the pendulum has swung people toward autocrats, oligarchies, creedal strictures. What they offer is an identity more than an ideology or platform.

Examples of countries without liberal democracy abound: China, Turkey, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Russia, Tanzania, Egypt, India, Philippines, Pakistan, Ghana, etc., etc. Some of these are deeply, culturally-rooted paternalistic-autocratic systems as in China, Saudi Arabia or Russia.  Others result from opportunistic power grabs, as in Venezuela, Hungary, Iran or Tanzania. Most of the world lives under such governments; one or another autocracy or oligarchy will always be emergent. But despite that, and in the long-run, human nature and demographics are stacked against them.

Human nature and demographics are stacked against them

These autocrats, oligarchies, and creedal society structures necessarily need to constrain freedom of belief, freedom of choice; freedom to express oneself; freedom to associate with whom one wishes; and freedom to aspire and pursue personal, emotional and material well-being. Even in cultures that pressure individuals to subordinate themselves to the collective (e.g., Japan?) these human values persist and survive. Man, i.e., the human, is a communal animal who needs to express her personhood, to believe in something outside himself, to seek material and spiritual well-being for their families.  These personal needs are better facilitated by a Liberal Democratic form of governing their commonwealth than by any other system of governance. 

 As material well-being is assured and self-confidence grows, these needs and values will manifest themselves again. I am an anxious-optimist: the arc history is bent toward the values delivered by liberal democracy. Despite the current pendulum swing toward simple answers, toward repression and autocracy, the pendulum will swing back and ever more strongly toward these human desires for freedom to choose, to express oneself, to openly believe, to associate, and to aspire.  A pendulum swing toward liberal democratic values and aspirations is given a boost by education and exposure to the world through music, film, literature, the Internet and proliferating media; each swing toward liberal democracy will be stronger than before. No other form of government is so likely to match human values, to promise delivery of these benefits, as does liberal democracy.

Autocrats and the unjust have always stimulated resistance; inspiring, role-model resistors from the past: Gandhi, MLK, Mandela, Bonhoeffer, Havel, Walesa. And now the more the world is linked by media and the Internet, the more frequently new resistors will emerge: other Novalnys, other Chow Hang-tungs and Ai Weiweis, other Varadarajans, other Kashoggis (may he rest in peace), other Aung San Suu Kyis and Satsaksits.

Moreover, it is the young that embrace and risk resistance.  The world (China and Russia excepted) is growing younger.  Millennials make up 25% of Chinese; those digital-generation Gen-Z-ers, 15%.  Gen Z-ers are 23% of Poles, 25% of Burmese, 30% of Venezuelans, 39% of Turks, 54% of Saudis, 60% of Iranians. At 30% of Indians, they total 472 million young, digitally savvy, upwardly mobile, ever-better educated strivers who aspire to lives that characterize liberal democracies, whether they think in terms of “democracy” or not. Only so long as Modi can deliver material progress, education opportunities and freedom of choice to them can he forestall resistance; but he can never tolerate freedom of belief, association, and expression -- and these will erode his autocracy. 

Out of Gen Z, other Greta Thunbergs will emerge. Here is a link to Pew Research’s study of American Gen Z’ers; note especially their views on government, race equity, and participation: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/05/14/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far-2/

They and millennials will, I believe, turn away from autocracy and oligarchy and seek the benefits of a liberal democratic republic, swinging the pendulum back toward liberal democratic values as the world emerges from the pandemic, engages and addresses climate change, and rebuilds confidence once again in an promising future.

What should we do now?

The first, necessary condition for liberal democracy is belief in it, i.e., confidence that it is fair, that one’s voice can be heard and one’s vote will count.

To promote and justify belief in liberal democracy, we need to:

~ Commit ourselves to reject the temptation of autocracy and simplistic answers.  Work at pragmatic, step-by-step improvements and solutions. Champion collaboration and dampen zero-sum    polarization. Restore legislative majority rule.

~ Focus on strengthening our liberal-democratic productivity and effectiveness, letting performance speak for itself. Focus on education, infrastructure, entrepreneurship, facilitation of middle-class prosperity and social mobility, and equitable and open elections. When collaboration is impossible, move forward.

~ Prosecute Trump, Giuliani, and Jan 6^th insurrectionists; demonstrate to ourselves and the world what “rule of law” means.

~ Liberalize immigration and routes to citizenship to enhance our attractiveness.

~ Inculcate and embrace an over-arching, shared identity that spans but does not invalidate individual identities of race, ethnicity, and gender. Celebrate our diversity. Establish a shared identity of opportunity – for anyone and everyone to express themselves and work toward realization of their aspirations.

~ Partner with other democratic states to address international issues of global warming, migration, pandemic response, and space exploration. Avoid presuming to claim “leadership of the free world”; humility with strength should be our posture.

~ Voice disapproval of civil right abuses such as Indian, Chinese, Thai and Burmese treatment of their Muslim minorities; of Russian and Chinese aggression against neighbors. Tie such concerns to       absence of invitations to partner or participate.

~ Do not initiate outreach to autocratic states (except for arms control); let them seek access to our markets and inclusion in collaborations. Refrain from imposing penalties and sanctions on undemocratic states but enact constraints and impose costs on US businesses and citizens that partner or trade with un-favored nations.

~ Give succor to the world when we can; diminish military aid.

Walt Kelly: “We have met the enemy – and it’s us.”

The threat to liberal democracy is not external but internal.  We are the threat: our lack of confidence; our acceptance of stalled material progress and insecurity; our acceptance of lagging education; our apathy about 10% of us lacking access to health care, about injustice, about inequity and inequality; our indulgence of prejudice and discrimination; our tolerance of and easy access to weapons with which to menace fellow citizens. And most important, our lack of a shared identity as Americans.

That other nations turn to autocracy is regrettable but not in itself a threat. We should remain vigilant and strong so that autocratic states cannot blackmail us either militarily or economically.  But our prime focus should be internal: to strengthen and deliver our liberal democracy’s benefits to all US citizens and to let our example speak to the world.

Surprisingly, most of the discussants, while very concerned about the immediate challenges, were also optimistic for the long run so long as reform was undertaken to strengthen democratic participation and inequities addressed.  But that's a tall order.