Democracy, Democratization and the Challenges
of Sustaining and Promoting Democratic Governance
Paper presented
by Dr. Ronald Meinardus*
at the Democratic Pacific Assembly (DPA) Taipei, Taiwan, 12-25
August 2004
Abstract:
The term “democratization” defines a political process; likewise
democracy – once attained – is never static, but continues to evolve.
Beyond successful democratization, consolidating democracy remains
a major challenge in most - if not all - parts of the world. Democratic
rule is inconceivable without elections. Still, political elections
alone are no guarantee for democratic governance. Liberal democracy
is characterized by competitive elections, the rule of law, the
separation of powers and the protection of basic political liberties.
In past decades, liberal democracy has made great advances in all
parts of the world. In contrast to democratic progress in other
parts of the world, little headway toward fundamental democratic
change is reported from the Arab world. Importantly, the situation
regarding democratic rights is much brighter in many of the 31 non-Arab
predominantly Muslim countries. One main challenge today is to promote
democracy in those countries where it does not exist. At the same
time, the consolidation of democracy in existing democratic societies
remains an ongoing challenge. International democracy promotion
is justifiable only as long as it occurs in close cooperation and
upon explicit invitation of relevant political forces of the host
country, and is limited to legitimate methods. It is a fallacy to
assume that a democratic society can be established by decree or
with guns and canons.
1. Democracy and democratization as processes
Democratization may be defined as the process that leads to democracy.
This is a complex political, social and also cultural procedure
or development that has taken different shapes in different parts
of the world.
The term “democratization” defines a political process; likewise
democracy – once attained – is never static, but continues to evolve.
The evolution of democratic societies is never a one-way-road. In
his acclaimed book The Third Wave in which he analyzes the transition
of some thirty countries from non-democratic to democratic systems
in the late twentieth century, Samuel Huntington writes:
“The democratization waves and the reverse waves suggest a two-step-forward,
one step-backward pattern.” 1
In other words: Beyond successful democratization, consolidating
democracy remains a major challenge in most - if not all - parts
of the world. In the real world, there exists no such thing as “the
end of history”, as some would have liked to believe following the
collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and other parts of the world
some 15 years ago.
The title of this session highlights – correctly in my eyes – the
existence of more than one perception regarding democratization.
We have assembled to discuss various perspectives on democratization.
Just as there are different perspectives regarding democratization,
there exist different variants of democracy: Political scientists
differentiate between parliamentary or presidential democracy, others
draw the line between liberal, social, yes even Christian democracy.
At the same time, it is important to define certain minimum criteria
of what constitutes a democracy. Before I move on to this in a little
while, I wish to emphasize that so called People’s democracies ruled
by one - mostly communist - monolithic party do not meet the standards
of what is generally considered a democracy.
2. Elections are not enough for democracy
Translated into English, the originally Greek word “Democracy”
means “rule of the people”. The selection of political leaders by
the people is the very basis of democratic governance. In most democracies
today, popular political participation is confined to this selection
of leaders on election-day every few years. Elections and democracy
are like two wheels of a cart. If you remove one wheel the vehicle
cannot move forward.
Democratic rule is inconceivable without elections. A ruler who
does away with elections is rightfully called a dictator. The very
essence of democratic rule lies in the limitation of political power.
In democratic orders, various methods are applied to curb power.
In a democracy, the power of the government is always limited by
time. All democratic constitutions include provisions that limit
the terms of political leaders; in some democratic countries, political
leaders are even explicitly excluded from running for office after
a stated period.
In essence, elections and democracy are about sharing and checking
political power and control. I would argue that the better the system
of checks and balances functions, the better the quality of democracy
in a specific country. In most democracies today, the division of
power is not limited to the classical separation between the three
traditional powers – the legislative, the executive and the judiciary.
In addition to what political scientists have termed horizontal
division of power (the separation of the parliament, the government
and the courts), what may be termed a vertical division of power
is important. This refers to the splitting up of power between the
central government and the different units of local autonomy.
The most advanced system of political decentralization is federalism.
While I have heard many arguments for and against this model, it
is undisputed that a federal set-up enhances the system of checks
and balances which is so vital for democratic governance.
While on the one hand democracy is inconceivable without elections,
political elections alone are no guarantee for democratic governance.
Put differently, one cannot be a democrat without supporting elections,
but one can very well conduct elections without being a democrat.
In many parts of the world, democratically elected governments ignore
constitutional limits and deprive the people of basic human rights
and freedoms. In his book The Future of Freedom. Illiberal Democracy,
the US-American journalist Fareed Zakaria enumerates a long list
of what he terms “elected autocrats”. He writes that,
“Over the past decade, elected governments claiming to represent
the people have steadily encroached on the powers and the rights
of other elements of society.” 2
The author draws a clear line between liberal democracy and the
illiberal deviation which he calls “illiberal democracy”. While
liberal democracy is characterized by competitive elections, the
rule of law, the separation of powers and the protection of basic
political liberties, “illiberal democracy” may well permit competitive
elections, but shows little respect for the aforementioned basic
liberal rights.
3. The global proliferation of democracy
In past decades, liberal democracy has made great advances in all
parts of the world. The success of democratization is well documented
empirically. For many years, the US-based Freedom House has published
an annual survey with comparative data on the evolution of political
and civil liberties. The annual surveys have become the primary
source for anyone who is interested in monitoring the trends of
democratic development on a global level.
For the supporters of democracy, the general trends outlined in
the recent report 3
are good news. Since 1972 – when the survey begun – those countries
rated “free” have more than doubled. According to the survey, ”The
highest-ever proportion of the world’s population is living in freedom
today”.
According to the Freedom House-survey, important democratic progress
has been registered in the Asia-Pacific region:
“In 1972, less than a third of the region’s states, 8, were Free,
while there were 13 Partly Free countries and 11 Not Free states.
Today, there are 18 Free countries, more than double the number
thirty years before, while the numbers of Partly Free and Not Free
states are 10 and 11, respectively. “
In spite of the democratic progress, in some Asian countries influential
circles continue to contend that democracy and human rights are
Western concepts not suitable for the political and social order
of this part of the world. The available empirical data refutes
this claim. As in other parts of the world, it is not cultural values
that stand in the way of liberal democracy in Asia but political
and local interests of local elites who are afraid of losing their
unmerited privileges once democracy sets in.
4. The Arab versus the Muslim “Democracy gap”
In contrast to democratic progress in other parts of the world,
little headway toward fundamental democratic change is reported
from the Arab world. In this context, political analysts refer to
a “democracy gap” 4,
as none of the 16 Arab states deserves to be termed “democratic”.
This is not a recent phenomenon but a tradition in that part of
the world:
“Among the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, there
has been virtually no significant progress toward democratization
in the three decades of the survey”
5, writes Adrian Karatnycky of Freedom
House.
Still, the prevalent authoritarianism in the Arab world in no way
suggests that democracy and Islam are incompatible. Importantly,
the situation regarding democratic rights is much brighter in many
of the 31 non-Arab predominantly Muslim countries than in the Arab
world. In many of the non-Arab Muslim countries competitive elections
with a genuine impact on the composition of the respective governments
have been conducted repeatedly. In their study “An ‘Arab’ more than
‘Muslim” Electoral Gap”, Alfred Stephan and Graeme B. Robertson
mention the following Muslim countries with relatively high levels
of political rights: Albania, Bangladesh, the Gambia, Malaysia,
Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey. 6
In an update regarding countries with Muslim majorities and genuine
electoral processes one should add Senegal and Indonesia, the country
with the largest Muslim population, where – after decades of dictatorial
rule – a democratic order is presently in the making.
While these cases refute the notion that Islam and democracy are
incompatible they do not explain the lack of democratic development
in the Arab world. In his essay published together with the 2003
Freedom in the World-survey, Adrian Karatnycky attributes the democratic
deficit in the Arab states to three factors:
- the persistent influence of regimes that came to power through
military coups
- the persistence of monarchies that resist democratic devolution
- “the phenomenon of personal authoritarianism”.7
Alfred Stephan and Graeme B. Robertson highlight two international
factors that, in their view, have prevented the proliferation of
democratic rule in the Arab states: The prevalence of the Arab-Israeli
conflict, and – related to this – the all but democratizing effects
of the sole superpower’s hold on the region:
“The United States contributes to the support of authoritarianism
by subsidizing some Arab regimes such as Egypt…because it helps
to buy peace with Israel or maintain U.S. geopolitical influence
in the Arab-Israeli conflict.”8
5. Key elements of Democratic Consolidation
Although to some it seems otherwise, there exists no compelling
correlation between religion and democracy and also no necessary
linkage between democracy and economic development. While conventional
wisdom teaches that economic development spurs democratization (and
typically Taiwan and South Korea are mentioned in this context),
there exists no proof of an automatism: we know of economically
highly developed countries that are not democratic (such as Brunei
or Singapore – or Saudi Arabia). At the same time, economically
underdeveloped countries have attained a high degree of democratic
governance, such as India, Bangladesh, Mali, and the Philippines.
One main challenge today is to promote democracy in those countries
where it does not exist. In this part of the world, I would mention
foremost the PR China, Myanmar (Burma) and the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea (North Korea).
At the same time, the consolidation of democracy in existing democratic
societies remains an ongoing challenge. Experience from all parts
of the world teaches that the establishment of democratic rule is
not a punctual act; to the contrary, the consolidation of democracy
is a never ending process – and demands perpetual vigilance and
commitment from the democratic forces.
Importantly, in many democratic countries majorities of the people
are far from convinced that the democratic order is at all times
the most suitable model for the solution of political, economic
and social challenges.
At this point, democratic civic education (and also the mass media)
plays an important role in educating the masses on the virtues of
democracy. Apart from this educational dimension, there exist a
series of structural or institutional factors crucial for the consolidation
of democratic rule.
In a talk to leaders from liberal parties from all over the world
this March in Kaohsiung, Lord Russel-Johnston, the former president
of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, defined
five key features which – from a liberal vantage point – are necessary
for the consolidation of democracy 9:
- First, the electorate should be offered a political choice.
In this context political parties with clear cut ideological programs
or platforms are of importance.
- Second, the opposition must be an integral part of the democratic
contest. For democracy to flourish, the opposition too must defend
the political structures and be loyal to the constitution.
- Third, the bureaucracy must be reliable, and
- Fourth, the rule of law must be respected by everyone.
According to Lord Russel-Johnston a final prerequisite for a liberal
democracy is the existence of civil society made up of non-governmental
organizations, trade unions and other interest groups. Alongside
the elected political establishment, the state institutions and
the political parties, these non-governmental groups play an important
complimentary role in a liberal democracy, as they form a bridge
between the people and the state. NGO's offer an avenue for political
participation which representative parliamentary rule and elections
with intervals of some years cannot possibly provide.
6. Challenges of promoting democracy in an international
setting
For some time, the promotion of democracy has become a part of
international relations: Most industrialized countries have elaborate
programs for promoting democracy beyond their own borders. This
intervention into the internal political affairs of other countries
at times poses serious problems. In my eyes, international democracy
promotion is justifiable only as long as it occurs in close cooperation
and upon explicit invitation of relevant political forces of the
host country, and is limited to legitimate methods.
A completely different situation has been created since the governments
of leading Western nations have turned to military means with the
declared aim of promoting “democratic values”. This so called “liberal
imperialism” originated in the late 90ies of the last century with
the bombing of Serbia; it has reached a high point with the ongoing
military occupation of Iraq. According to the perpetrators of the
military strategy, the ultimate political objective of the war is
the democratization of the greater Middle East. For me as a liberal,
bonding the words “liberal” and “imperialism” is an unbearable provocation.
Liberalism always aims at the increase of freedom, while imperialism
stands for the exact opposite: domination by a foreign power.
I could mention numerous tactical and fundamental arguments why
the Anglo-American strategy of “liberal imperialism” in the Middle
East is misguided – and will fail to reach the stated political
objectives. While, indeed, the democratic world cannot sit by idly
when gross human rights violations are happening, the selectiveness
in the application of the imperial doctrine has discredited it even
before it was implemented. While US soldiers are killing (and dying)
in Iraq for the promotion of democracy, their government has turned
a blind eye on - and even cooperated with - other tyrannies not
far away.
Finally, it is a fallacy to assume that a democratic society can
be established by decree or with guns and canons. Democratization
of undemocratic societies is a highly complex social, political
and cultural process. For democracy to blossom, certain elements
are indispensable. Among these are pluralism, the evolution of an
educated middle class, the emancipation of women, the independence
of the judiciary and the presence of independent media. In summary,
the modernization of society is a prerequisite for democratization.
Therefore, if foreign governments truly wish to promote democracy
in foreign lands (and not their own imperial ambitions) they should
first focus their efforts on modernizing said societies.
Otherwise, if they continue the bellicose strategy of forcing democracy
on the people with the barrel of the gun, they might be up for
an unpleasant surprise: if given the chance to express themselves
in free elections the people might end up electing the likes of
Osama bin Laden and other terrorists into government.
* Dr. Ronald Meinardus is the Resident
Representative of the Friedrich-Naumann-Foundation in the Philippines
and a commentator on Asian affairs. Comments are welcome at liberal@fnf.org.ph.
1 Samuel Huntington: The Third Wave. Democratization in the Late
Twentieth Century, Norman/London 1993, p. 25.
2 Fareed Zakaria: The Future of Freedom. Illiberal Democracy at
Home and Abroad, New York/London 2003, p. 102.
3 Freedom House (ed.): Freedom in the World 2003. The Annual Survey
of Political Rights and Civil Liberties, Washington D.C. 2003
(viewed in: http://www.freedomhouse.org/research).
4 Alfred Stepan and Graeme R. Robertson: An ‚Arab’ more than ‚Muslim’
Electoral Gap, in: Journal of Democracy, Washington D.C., July
2003 (Volume 14, Number 3), pp. 30-44.
5 Adrian Karatnycky: Liberty’s Expansion in a Turbulent World,
in: Freedom House, ibid., p. 2.
6 Stepan and Robertson, ibid, p. 32.
7 Karatnycky, ibid., p. 6.
8 Stepan and Robertson, ibid., p. 42.
9 Lord Russel-Johnston’s speech at the Liberal International Asian
Conference in Kaohsiung/Taiwan is documented in Liberal Aerogramme,
London, Issue 48, June 2004, p. 4-5.
*Dr. Ronald Meinardus is the former resident representative
of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation Philippines
