From America
Honduras' Forgotten Conflict
The country is in the news again after a prison fire killed more than 350 inmates, but the media are still disregarding its weak democratic conditions
Big Money vs Big Ideas
Republicans have to make a choice between Romney’s moderate politics and Gingrich’s extravagant idea
The Republicans: Veer Right and Right Again
The electoral process and the Tea Party risk jeopardising the Republican bid for the White House
Meat or Veg?
Main Content
Is Democracy Dead in the 21st Century?
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others which have been tried from time to time"
It is likely that Winston Churchill had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he came up with the above maxim. Not only was he suggesting that neither communism nor fascism were all that they were cracked up to be, but he was also mocking (gently, by his standards) those who had the temerity to question whether his beloved British Empire was really an entirely benign organisation – a suitable point of view, perhaps, given what Churchill witnessed during his lifetime.
Leaving aside questions of Mr Churchill’s gentleness it is hard to cast aspersions on his logic. The fairly shambolic record of democratic systems in the 20th century - including the British Empire - looks positively successful when compared with the dire records of authoritarian ones.
Although the British have spent much of the last 50 years agonising over whether their empire building – which gave the world its common law, its railways and some of its most unappetising cuisine (just try a jellied eel next time you are in London) – was a good or bad thing, they have always been able to comfort themselves with the fat that, historically speaking, they have always been better living in a democracy.
Yet this may have now changed. Citizens of democracies clearly remain fortunate thanks to the power they hold over their executives, but in economic, military and diplomatic terms, ‘free nations’ appear to be struggling to keep up with their more authoritarian counterparts, and look set to lose even more ground in the coming years.
Take Africa, for example. During the 1990s, Western diplomats were influential throughout much of the continent revelling in their status as ‘the only show in town’ when it came to development aid and building business links. Now, the Chinese have assumed that mantle and, thanks to their largely ambivalent attitude towards issues such as human rights (which, admittedly, democracies have often ignored in the past too) are a much more attractive proposition when African leaders start to look for inward investment.
Worse still, it is not just in the amoral world of foreign policy that democracies have lost sway – several of them can no longer get their houses in order. The narrative of Europe’s sovereign debt crisis has played out in an almost farcical manner one which has combined the allegorical resonance of the parable of the prodigal son with the foolishness of a Monty Python film.
Help for profligate governments (who borrowed because they did not want to upset their voters with austerity) has not been forthcoming because richer partner states (who did not lend because they did not want to upset their voters) refused to produce the required funds. Now, markets (who are worried about the intentions of both types of governments who do not want to upset their voters) have become jittery, meaning that more drastic measures will be needed if the crisis is to be solved. Of course, a resolution is far from certain, particularly as it will require help from governments (who do not want to upset their voters).
Clearly, the events outlined above have two common and fairly obvious themes. Firstly, governments in democracies are hamstrung when it comes to policy making, principally because, of course, they do not want to upset their voters. Their prevaricating over soft power issues such as human rights in Africa has meant that their ability to exert any real influence is diminished, whilst they cannot command the respect of markets because they cannot demonstrate the ability to look beyond the immediate wants of voters.
The second issue has more to do with the functioning of democracy in the 21st century, and the new pressures in which systems are forced to operate. These days, ultra fast news and developments can leave even the most authoritarian governments wrong-footed – just looked at what happened to Colonel Gaddafi’s regime in Libya. It is hardly the fault of governments, still less their voters, if they have to engage in the kind of ratification processes which looked pedestrian even in the days of the telegram.
But the fact remains – authoritarian governments in China and Russia have proved themselves more adept at global crises, either through state-capitalism in the case of Russia or through state-backed saving in the case of China, neither of which would have been possible in democracies which managed to make ratification of the European Financial Securities Framework look like an agonisingly difficult piece of legislation. In economic terms, it was actually a no-brainer.
An option for those wishing to reduce the frequency of these divergences between the best policy and the will of the people is, as ever, the reform of democratic systems to strengthen the hand of governments.
Measures such as those introduced by Britain recently which stipulated that governments should have a minimum term in office are a good start in this regard– they strengthen the hand of executives when it comes to making necessary policy decisions. Further moves to allow quicker policy innovation need also to be considered although, these need to be counterbalanced with checks and balances and courts and other advocacy groups much be brought on board if they are to really work.
Much more important than this, however would be the shift in the attitude of civil society organisations in accepting the fact that governments need a freer hand to quickly implement policy in the 21st century – a difficult move, given how closely guarded, not to mention how hard won, those freedoms are.
After all, China may be flying in economic terms, but its cultural footprint is close to non-existent, particularly if one discards historical examples. Certainly, it has had its cultural creativity stifled by the need to conform with social, political and economic norms. Further along the scale, neither Iran nor North Korea – amongst the most authoritarian states in the world – have been able to use their considerable power to counter economic woes.
In such circumstances, it may well be that Winston Churchill was right. Democracy may not be the best system in the world, but it is probably better than all the others.