• English Site
• >World
• >Erich Follath
• >

  The Decline of an American Export: Western Democracy Loses Ground to Autocrats

The Decline of an American Export Western Democracy Loses Ground to Autocrats

By Erich Follath

Part 3: Democracy Can only Come from Below

Good governance -- i.e. governing in the best interests of the people -- is not possible without their participation, but it can be managed without copying Western ideas. Although the country is governed in a patriarchal manner, no serious observer would deny that Singapore is governed competently. The people there benefit from the freedom they have to shape political decisions. At the same time they benefit from the fact that the government provides them with basic economic security, access to education and basic health care.

These social benefits are also guaranteed in the United Arab Emirates, at least for the country's own nationals. However, the latter make up only about one-tenth of the overall population. Most of the rest are underprivileged Indian and Pakistani guest workers. With the Federal National Council ("Majlis"), which has an advisory function in decision-making processes and also addresses critical issues, the far-sighted rulers of Abu Dhabi and Dubai see themselves following in the tradition of the prophet.

Conservative Muslims and radical Islamists perceive Western forms of democracy to be a threat to their religion. This is not hard to understand given that their experience with the export of democracy from the United States or Europe has been as something imposed on them, often with military force, as in the case of Iraq.

The most dissatisfied and pessimistic people in the world are living in post-Soviet states and Iraq -- all formally defined as democratic countries. Professor Ronald Inglehart at the University of Michigan notes that it is simply not the case that people live happily ever after when constitutions are adopted. It is obvious that democracy in and of itself does not automatically make people happy. Rather it is happy people who make a democracy.

Inglehart refers in this context to South Korea and Taiwan, societies that up until the 1980s were strictly regimented development dictatorships that nonetheless offered their citizens opportunities for education and career advancement. As the populations of these societies became increasingly affluent they also succeeded in gaining political freedoms. Today elected representatives of parties dominate the political scene both in Seoul and in Taipeh.

But can this be seen as a general rule? When authoritarian rulers liberalize their economies will this gradually lead to the development of democratic institutions and political freedoms? Will the people demand these freedoms and will the rulers accommodate their wishes? Experts have said that the South Korean scenario is likely to happen in China.

So far there is no evidence that would prove the assumption that authoritarianism and economic growth go hand in hand. The majority of Chinese seem to be satisfied with the opportunities they have for economic advancement and attach very little importance to participation in political decision-making processes. Beijing is at most taking baby steps in the direction of democracy. It now offers elections at the local village level, for example, but not beyond that. There is a constitutional guarantee for private ownership and a right to freedom of speech, at least in theory. On the other hand, when a minority like the Tibetans voice the slightest protest this is seen as an attempt to destabilize the country and their voices are silenced with brute force.

The Chinese Communist Party talks a lot about democracy. President Hu Jintao calls it "the common goal of mankind." But the party refuses to give up its monopoly on political power and has no intention whatsoever of allowing the other attributes of a pluralistic system such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and a genuinely independent judicial system. Serious human rights violations abound in China. Human rights activists are subject to arbitrary arrest and often sentenced to long prison sentences. Excessive use is made of the death sentence and condemned prisoners are executed by the thousands. Communist Party assurances as to its pursuit of democratic policies seem to be mere mockery.

There is one thing the Chinese leadership can rightly take credit for: "We have implemented the biggest human right there is. We are able to feed our 1.3 billion citizens," the Communist Party's mouthpice, People's Daily, wrote. Never before in history have so many people been able to lift themselves out of abject poverty and build a normal existence for themselves in such a short period of time, i.e. in the three decades since Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms were introduced. Most Chinese are still willing to tolerate the growing divide between the rich and the poor. Most migrant workers are still willing to see the poorly paid jobs they do in China's major cities as an opportunity and not as a humiliation.

But the numerous spontaneous demonstrations against arbitrary actions on the part of administrative authorities, cronyism and scandalous working conditions in coal mines and sweatshops show that something of vital importance is missing in the Chinese system, despite the continued impressive levels of economic growth and record foreign exchange reserves. There is no outlet for channeling anger at the authorities and using it to help counteract negative social trends and political decisions. China's major competitor, India, clearly has such an outlet for the expression of worker discontent: a critical press and free elections.

The People's Republic of China and democratic India, the two most populous countries in the world, are among its most successful economic powers, the Chinese dragon currently a little more than the Indian elephant. There are a number of factors that would seem to indicate that India's democracy could have a chance of winning out over China's dictatorship in the long run.

Indians vote incompetent governments out of office. They don't tolerate restrictions on their civil liberties. They insist on legal security. Amartya Sen, a professor of economics and Nobel laureate from West Bengal who is no stranger to criticism of Indian government policies, noted that it is not autocracy but rather democratic forms of government that help prevent extremely negative economic trends. He cited as an example the fact that there has never been a major famine in a democracy. Politicians seeking re-election cannot afford to allow major social disasters to occur.

Sen, who teaches at Harvard, added that democracy contributes towards national unity, pointing out that India is ethnically much less homogeneous than China while the latter has significantly greater trouble dealing with its minorities. He suggested that Delhi, which leads in the area of elite training, and Beijing, which has an outstanding record in satisfying material and knowledge-related needs, could learn from each other.

Optimists say that democratic societies have proven to be more stable, also economically, than their authoritarian counterparts. They are still better at achieving a more equal society. As a result, there is no long-term reason to feel discouraged. Democracy is perhaps only in a temporary downturn, a transitory crisis. We would doubtless have more success in exporting democracy if this were to be done more carefully and without insisting that it always is the right model.

The decisive trend in the direction of pluralism and separation of powers can only come from below, from the grassroots level of a country. It must be connected with hope for improvement in living conditions and personal freedoms. It is only in this way that we can break away from the "self-inflicted dependence" Immanuel Kant spoke of.

"Democracy is the only form of government that allows for the peaceful correction of errors committed and, as such, continues to be the most attractive political model around," assesses German historian Hans-Ulrich Wehler. There's no doubt that that's the case. Word still needs to get around to more people. At the moment the trend is still pointing in the other direction.

Thus it is that Bhutan, a tiny country high up in the Himalayas, and, on the other side of the world, Paraguay, in the pancake-flat expanses of the pampas, are the only countries to have succeeded in adopting a democratic form of government in the recent past. In mid-April Fernando Lugo, a former bishop and hero to the poor, won a sensational victory in the presidential election in Asunción, defeating a candidate from the Colorado Party, which had ruled Paraguay for more than 60 years prior to that. It isn't clear yet whether the corrupt elite that has controlled the country for so long is going to hold back or if they are going to try to undermine Lugo's land reforms. Obviously skepticism is warranted here. Nonetheless, a new democratic experiment has begun.

For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the "i" symbol.

Post to other social networks:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•