As events continue to unfold in Ukraine, it’s time to ask ourselves what is the future of Liberal democracy. More precisely, will Liberal democracies become the norm in the 21st century, or will many nation states continue to be ruled by authoritarian systems, in one form or another.
This is a question that two great political scientists, Francis Fukuyama and
Samuel Huntington, dealt with in two highly respected books. Published in 1992,
Fukuyama’s “The End of History & the Last Man” predicts the spread of Liberal
democracy and market capitalism throughout the world, in effect becoming the
final form of human government. In sharp contrast is Huntington’s “The Clash of
Civilizations & the Remaking of World Orders”, published in 1996, which predicts
conflict between the world’s major civilizations, of which he identifies seven. For
Huntington, culture and geography continue to matter.
Liberal democracy is essentially a form of government based on the rule
of law where elections are held and citizens enjoy basic human rights. Liberal
democracies are characterized by free speech, freedom from arbitrary arrests, right
of association, individual rights, and protection for minorities. Legal constitutions
play an important role in safeguarding these rights. Authoritarianism in contrast is
characterized by an absence of multi-party elections, obedience to the government,
and with citizens enjoying few democratic rights like free speech.
Huntington & Fukuyama present brilliant arguments and readers should
approach both arguments with an open mind while reading these seminal works.
But there may be a third approach to understanding the future. Perhaps the
emphasis should be placed not on which system prevails, but rather what kinds of
liberal democracies and authoritarian systems eventually emerge and thrive. Take
the case of liberal democracy. Will it resemble Scandinavian social democracy,
US style democracy where the state has a limited role in providing social services,
the EU model which promotes economic and political cooperation between
member states, or Canadian style federalism? But questions can also be asked
about authoritarian systems. Will it be the strong man model (aka Putin) where
aggression towards neighbouring states & ethnic nationalism prevails, or the
Chinese model, where economic liberties are promoted over democratic values?
Other models include the current system prevailing in Iran which is essentially
theocratic in nature, and the ones prevailing in the Arab world, ranging from
monarchies in Morocco to outright dictatorships in Syria.
Let’s take a quick tour of the world to see the state of Liberal democracy
starting with the Middle East where the future remains uncertain. Will Egypt ever
become truly democratic? Everything points to it reverting back to military rule
disguised as civilian rule. This it seems is the Egyptian model for authoritarian
rule: a system going back to President Nasser’s overthrown of the Monarchy back
in the 1950s. Nasser would eventually be replaced by two other military men
(Sadat & Mubarak) and it seems like General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi will likely be
the winner in the next general election scheduled for 2014. Sisi you will recall
was instrumental in overthrowing Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood,
a party that ruled Egypt for all of one year despite winning a clear majority in a
general election. This was the only recent break with military inspired rule. Morsi
however sought to concentrate power in his hands and the military responded
by arresting him. Someone obviously forgot to remind him that only Presidents
with ties to the military could do this. He now faces charges of corruption inciting
murder and violence.
What of the rest of the Muslim world? There’s great hope in Malaysia and
Indonesia, two ethnically and religiously diverse nations, proving the point that
Islam can be open to both diversity and liberty. But what of South Asian countries
like Pakistan where inter-ethnic hostilities seem to be the norm? And then there’s
the Middle East. Will women in Saudi Arabia ever gain full rights as citizens,
let alone the right to drive? Will women in traditional societies like Afghanistan,
Morocco, and Jordan ever be equal before the law? Inequality before the law is not
conducive to establishing liberal democratic values.
The future of Liberal democracy is thus tied to how well it can thrive in
states that are confronted with strong conservative traditions that in turn are
linked to strong religious and ethnic identity. India is a clear example. Can Liberal
democracy ever destroy the inhumanity of the caste system or unite a nation
divided between Hindus and Muslims, not to mention countless ethnic groups?
There’s reason to be optimistic. South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore
were all once authoritarian states. Neither geography, history nor the ethnic
identities of these states kept them from emerging into full-fledged democracies.
Can they serve as role models for other non-European states struggling to become
democratic? Except for Singapore, three of the four states mentioned are relatively
ethnically homogeneous. But then North Korea is also ethnically homogenous and
it’s the world's only truly totalitarian system.
Other positive examples of new democratic countries breaking from the
authoritarian model include Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic states of
Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. These were all states once ruled from Moscow. In
contrast, states like Georgia and Ukraine are having problems establishing Liberal
democracy owing no doubt to their proximity to Russia, but culture also matters.
Africa for its part is making great strides towards democracy. But will these
democracies meet the needs of their citizens and will they be able to deal with
tribal and inter-ethnic divisions? The Central African Republic is one example:
Tensions between Muslims and Christians is threatening to tear that country apart.
Kenya meanwhile continues to be divided along ethnic lines, a phenomenon that
becomes exacerbated whenever national elections are held. Other African states
like Uganda have meanwhile passed anti-Gay laws.
Health concerns like AIDS remains a serious health issue for Africa. A
case in point is South Africa, a nation that has more HIV/AIDS infections than
any other country in the world. This deadly disease has taken the lives of nearly
6 million South African citizens, yet Thabo Mbeki, the second president of post-
apartheid South Africa, once claimed AIDS did not exist in his country. South
Africa unfortunately has essentially evolved into a one party system with their
closest competitor a distant second. Expect South Africa to keep electing more
incompetent leaders.
The future of Liberal democracy remains important for long established
democracies like the US and Canada as well. Will money undermine democracy
in America and Canada? It’s a sad fact that most members of the US Congress are
millionaires. Will the gap between the rich and the poor continue to grow? What
economic future does the middle class have? In other words, will the economic
elites take over democracy? How will minority groups like African-Americans and
Hispanics fair in the US? As for Europe, the issue is more whether countries like
France and Germany can find a way of integrating millions of Muslim immigrants
into their society. Separate but equal isn’t the answer to creating a more egalitarian
society.
The world is now over 50% urban and should increase to 75% by the end
of this century. Does urbanization lead to democracy or to ethnic conflict over
employment opportunities? Urbanization means new ways of living and seeing the
world. It’s about setting aside certain traditions and embracing novelties.
Urbanization certainly seems to have brought greater opportunities and
rights to women fleeing the conservatism of the countryside. Liberal democracy
will no doubt be aided by the progress women are making in education and
business. There are currently women heads of states in Germany, Denmark, Chile,
Brazil, and Argentina. Angela Merkel, the current Chancellor of Germany, is
probably the most respected leader in Europe and could serve as a role model
for other women aspiring to become leaders of their respective states. Unlike
a polarizing figure like Hilary Clinton, she came with no baggage, and wasn’t
associated with any family member who was once the country’s leader. Compare
this with someone like Cristina Kirchner, current leader of Argentina whose
husband was once also President, or with Benazir Bhutto, whose father was
President of Pakistan. Women will no doubt play a role in promoting not only
Liberal democracy but in creating democracies that are more concerned with
providing basic social services like health care and education.
SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” may be occurring not only between
states, as we currently see between Russia and the West over Ukraine, but also
within states, in places like Turkey, Pakistan and India, as the more liberal cities
clash with a conservative countryside. And what role will science and technology
have in creating either liberal democracies or maintaining and strengthening
authoritarian ones? Huntington’s book does not discuss this in any meaningful way. Neither does his book discuss whether the new economy which is so
tied to science benefits one system over the other. Will geography have a say on
whether countries like Ukraine and Georgia can ever become truly democratic? Of
course demographics will have a say as well. But demographics should not be used
by the majority to oppress a minority as happened 20 years ago in the Rwandan
Genocide.
Fukuyama and Huntington are not legal scholars. A key question they
consequently don’t ask is whether most liberal democracies will eventually evolve
into true federal systems or remain essentially unitary ones. An argument could be
made that authoritarian systems can slowly evolve into democracies by introducing
federalism. Democracy can thus be experimented with at the local level as a way of
introducing democratic principles in a piece meal fashion. This may be a model for
China to follow.
In the end, geography, history, culture, natural resources, and levels of
education are all important factors in determining whether states evolve into
authoritarian systems or liberal democracies. But there’s another important factor
which has to do with leadership. The type of leaders a nation turns out will no
doubt influence future development. Some states are lucky and get leaders like
Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Other states are not so lucky and end up with the likes
of Milosevic and Saddam Hussein.
Lastly, assuming that states like Russia and China remain authoritarian well into the 21st century, we can expect the world to remain divided between authoritarian and democratic states for the next few decades. Russia will continue to attempt to influence the states that border it, and China will continue to influence whatever smaller states it does business with, whether in Indo-China or Africa. Russia is the world’s largest country while China has the world’s biggest population. These are important factors that will influence world events. The hope is twofold. Firstly, that whatever system chosen by a nation meets the humanitarian needs of its citizens, and secondly, that authoritarian states eventually evolve into Liberal democracies that meet the needs of its citizens while respecting the more positive aspects of local cultures & traditions.
