Recent events in diverse nations suggest that democracy’s global prospects face some sort of fork in the road. How will these events affect opponents and advocates of greater democracy, in all the world’s nations and societies? Every country’s successes or failures offer evidence for one course or the other.
In elections in Thailand in mid-May, parties opposed to an army-based regime won a majority in the lower house of parliament. Will the generals allow them to exercise their mandate? In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan won re-election in a runoff vote. Will he continue on his track of diluting checks and balances to his power, facilitating Russian diplomacy, and Islamizing Turkish society? In Tunisia, the first mover of the Arab Spring democratic movement, a leader of the country’s first democratic administration was imprisoned, along with judges, other opposition politicians, journalists, and trade unionists. Has the Arab democratic impulse been quashed? In Kosovo, ethnic Serbs protest the installation of mayors chosen in an election they boycotted. In Guatemala, presidential candidates are disqualified in contested decisions. Do those nations’ electoral systems stand up against these pressures? In Israel, where internal rule of law is well established, Benjamin Netanyahu dropped a move to limit the Supreme Court’s power, but only after vehement protests in the streets. In France, Emmanuel Macron passed an increase in the retirement age by a provision allowing him to bypass the legislature. Will democracy become more restricted even where it is considered the norm?
The prospects seem more favorable in some places. In the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos’ son seems to have the approval of his public, with a less inflammatory style than predecessor Rodrigo Duterte. In Indonesia, while democratic practice has its flaws, the public still believes in the idea.
Meanwhile, China continues to threaten a democratic Taiwan, and touts its governance model as it courts authoritarian regimes. Russia continues to repress dissent as it fights in Ukraine. Turkey, India and Brazil straddle the question of opposition to that invasion – free elections do not necessarily breed opposition to dictators abroad.
Finally, in many established democracies, the people’s competence to govern looks questionable. The most prominent recent case, as noted on this site, is in the US, in our debt ceiling issue. Congress has just passed legislation to lift the debt ceiling, but nearly 30 percent of legislators voted against it. And the legislation itself solves no problems, either of getting government spending in line with its means, or of defusing a politics of partisan intransigence. The biggest money questions, around major entitlement programs and taxation, were never on the table in debt ceiling negotiations.
We have shown that a majority of Americans don’t wish to risk the catastrophes that a default could trigger, but we have not proven ourselves competent in governing ourselves.
Can America overcome a continuing malaise of social and moral doubts and deficiencies? Can we overcome the paralysis of polarization? Can the first nation created on a premise of government by consent of the governed show that that idea is sustainable?
What lessons will be drawn from all these global happenings by all the world’s people, as they assess their interest in democracy and rights? What lessons will be drawn by rulers? How will the Chinese pitch sell, for the effectiveness of their top-down social model? Will people – the governed – stand up for their rights to self government and freedom to live as they choose? Or will they conclude that strong rulers are a better bet to secure basic needs, and that democracy and impartial rule of law are anomalies or illusions?
What capacity will free countries have to keep their own freedom and to keep it attractive? America and other “Western” nations provide aid and governing models to developing societies. But do we show freedom’s value in what we do with ours? People in Argentina or Chad or Sri Lanka will choose their course – or accept some rulers’ choices – based on their own interpretations of what they see. The only thing that we really control is what we show them – that free people really can govern themselves and produce something worthwhile in our freedom lives.
Common Conviction 