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 6th
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.
