AMERICA AND ITS IMAGE

How to Save Democracy

Bush gave democracy promotion a bad name. The next administration has to get it right.

 
 
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

 

The new U.S. President will face more than one kind of global recession. In addition to the economic downturn, the world is suffering a democratic contraction. In Russia, awash with oil money, Vladimir Putin and his KGB cronies have sharply restricted freedom. In Latin America, authoritarian (and anti-American) populism is on the rise. In Nigeria, the Philippines and once again in Pakistan, democracy is foundering amid massive corruption, weak government and a loss of public faith. In Thailand, the government is paralyzed by mass protests. In Africa, more than a dozen fragile democracies must face the economic storm unprepared. And in the Middle East—the Bush administration's great democratic showcase—the push for freedom lies in ruins.

In the past decade, the breathtaking democratic wave that swept the world during the final quarter of the 20th century reversed course. Making democracy work proved harder than bringing down authoritarian rule. And receptive peoples everywhere were alienated by the arrogance and unilateralism of President George W. Bush's approach, which associated "democracy promotion" with the use of force and squandered America's soft power. Advancing democracy abroad remains vital to the U.S. national interest. But the next president will have to craft a more modest, realistic and sustainable strategy.

It's easy today to forget how far freedom has advanced in the past 30 years. When the wave of liberation began in 1974 in Portugal, barely a quarter of the world's states met the minimal test of democracy: a place where the people are able, through universal suffrage, to choose and replace their leaders in regular, free and fair elections. Over the course of the next two decades, dictatorships gave way to freely elected governments first in Southern Europe, then in Latin America, then in East Asia. Finally, an explosion of freedom in the early '90s liberated Eastern Europe and spread democracy from Moscow to Pretoria. Old assumptions—that democracy required Western values, high levels of education and a large middle class—crumbled. Half of sub-Saharan Africa's 48 states became democracies, and of the world's poorest countries, about two in every five are democracies today.

This great shift coincided with an unprecedented moment of U.S. military, economic and cultural dominance. Not only was America the world's last remaining superpower, but U.S. values—individual freedom, popular sovereignty, limited government and the rule of law—were embraced by progressive leaders around the world. Opinion surveys showed democracy to be the ideal of most people as well.

In recent years, however, this mighty tide has receded. This democratic recession has coincided with Bush's presidency, and can be traced in no small measure to his administration's imperial overreach. But it actually started in 1999, with the military coup in Pakistan, an upheaval welcomed by a public weary of endemic corruption, economic mismanagement and ethnic and political violence. Pakistan's woes exposed more than the growing frailty of a nuclear-weapon state. They were also the harbinger of a more widespread malaise. Many emerging democracies were experiencing similar crises. In Latin America and the post-communist world, and in parts of Asia and Africa, trust in political parties and parliaments was sinking dramatically, as scandals mounted and elected governments defaulted on their vows to control corruption and improve the welfare of ordinary people.

Thanks to bad governance and popular disaffection, democracy has lost ground. Since the start of the democratic wave, 24 states have reverted to authoritarian rule. Two thirds of these reversals have occurred in the past nine years—and included some big and important states such as Russia, Venezuela, Bangladesh, Thailand and (if one takes seriously the definition of democracy) Nigeria and the Philippines as well. Pakistan and Thailand have recently returned to rule by elected civilians, and Bangladesh is about to do so, but ongoing crises keep public confidence low. Democracy is also threatened in Bolivia and Ecuador, which confront rising levels of political polarization. And other strategically important democracies once thought to be doing well—Turkey, South Africa and Ukraine—face serious strains.

This isn't to say there haven't been a few heartening successes in recent years. Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, has become a robust democracy nearly a decade after its turbulent transition from authoritarian rule. Brazil, under the left-leaning Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has also strengthened its democratic institutions while maintaining fiscal discipline and a market orientation and reducing poverty. In Africa, Ghana has maintained a quite liberal democracy while generating significant economic growth, and several smaller African countries have moved in this direction.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: sarah r @ 01/14/2009 2:58:28 PM

    I completely agree with James Hovland on this--we cannot even think about exporting our ideas of democracy if we allow our leaders to constantly undermine those very ideals internally. Whatever Bush has done for the spread of democracy, he has done much worse for our own democracy. I know that it's almost cliche at this point to even point that out, but check out this graphic: http://www.flypmedia.com/issues/17/#1/27. How can all of those actions add up to anything other than a non-democracy?!

  • Posted By: smoothdriver @ 01/08/2009 12:05:43 PM

    I think Mr diamond is "RIGHT-ON-POINT" with this article. It's about doing what's right and insisting that others also step up to the table of doing the right thing, simply, because it is, the right thing to DO!!!!!

    Dale
    Tracy, CA

  • Posted By: nobleatheist @ 01/06/2009 9:35:07 AM

    While I went through this article, I kept thinking of an example in South America, where US has been helpful in this noble cause of democracy-promotion. Why does the author think Venezuela has gone authoritarian, when the people of the country refused to vote for any semblance of authoritarian rule by Chavez? Cuba, could not become a democracy but they have achieved levels of gender-equality, education, and equity unprecedented in the region. The role of the US motivated by their business and anti-socialism interests and the heavy handling of states in the region had created an element of insecurity. With the changing times the US omnipotence could have some share-holders to produce some diversity at the top and militant pursuing of interest could give way to dialogue. Let us hope.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

 

Up and Coming Newsweek Stories on Digg

Discover more Newsweek content on Digg
 
 
ISSUES 2009

Today's problems ignore national boundaries. The world needs smart management that does the same.