Diamond's Democracy part II

This is the second of the previous post....

Internal factors are needed more to drive an authoritarian state into the ground, because if civil society is not on board with change, then change will not persist. Therefore, the civic community must begin to see all its members as equal and with the same opportunity to advance in life through education and employment. Pro-democratic change usually makes way for economic opportunities and the free flow of information, which leads to power into civilians hands to act out against the authoritarian regime. Taiwan is a great example when its per capita income increased by 7% starting in the 1960s while its economy grew by 9% annually, its transition to democracy went much smoother because the public benefitted. Another manner in which civil society becomes empowered and takes chances to oppose the ruling class is when the legitimacy of the government declines. Legitimacy can decline because the ruling party is not delivering on its goals to the public, such as was seen in the Philippines and Serbia, or if the government consumed all the state’s capital such as was the case of Benin in the late 1980s. In addition, when legitimacy declines, political elites jump ship, which also occurred in Benin, and may lead the opposition movement against the current dictator.

Diamond goes over each region of the world and describes the democracy prospects and the problems that confront democracy from expanding. Beginning with Eastern Europe, Diamond presents surveys taken in the mid-2000s that show most East and Central Europeans are increasingly against authoritarian regimes and one party rule. Yet some post-Soviet states, like Ukraine and Belarus, reveal that they are more open to authoritarianism, like Ukraine and Belarus. Further, right wing parties and populist movements have been springing up in the 2000s, such as the National Union Attack Party in Bulgaria, which hinder democratic achievements. One party rule has the tendency to bounce back in Eastern Europe due to overwhelming corruption and political infighting, thus democratic parties need to remain on the scene to counterbalance populism. There is also distrust of political institutions since communism, socialism, and authoritarianism did not vanish long ago. Lastly, and although the EU structural programs are aimed to usher in democracy, politically weak countries like Serbia, Macedonia, and Kosovo find it hard to live up to the EU standards of liberalism and human rights and much progress and encouragement is needed to keep countries on the democratic path.

Latin America is stricken with poverty, social exclusion, and mass inequality in most states but more so in Peru, Brazil, Venezuela, and Bolivia. Although elections tend to get high turnouts, basic citizenship rights are lacking and corruption is rampant. Organized crime is an issue as well as crooked cops who accept bribes and will not put their lives in danger. This can be seen in states like Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, and Guatemala. Diamond, again through surveys on attitudes toward democracy, shows that Latin Americans are in support of and ready for democracy, but still do not overtly trust their leaders. Moreover, they are aware that inequality and corruption hurt the status of the state. In short, a weak rule of law, a lot crime in the poorer parts of society, and strong organized crime puts democracy on the back burner. Perhaps living in a democratic state would help reduce these ailments in society, but when looking at Mexico, this does not appear to be so.

Asia has a variety of political systems with two of the best emerging democracies in Taiwan and South Korea, according to Diamond. He is also enthusiastic about India’s democracy as it is the most populous democracy in the world. However, democracy is under stress in the region, specifically in countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Thailand where the military rules the land. The region lacks proper and just leaders, ones that will provide for the economy while fighting greed and corruption. Further, Singapore’s model is a counter to democracy, which has an authoritarian style government but has provided economically and financially for its citizens. Therefore other states in the region can point to Singapore as support for one party-rule rather than trying democracy. There is also Taiwan’s Chen Shui-bian, who aimed to hold onto power in 2004, and by doing so reverted to spying on civilians and detaining certain opposition members. He singlehandedly set democracy back in the country, especially when it was reported that Chen’s son and wife were feeding off Taiwan’s monetary capital. A positive result to this fiasco in Taiwan was that its citizens demonstrated and demanded accountability, exercising their democratic rights (Chen was eventually reelected in 2004). But because democracy is emerging in Asia such as in Eastern Europe, one party rule and power-hungry leaders are still a possibility.

In Africa, first and foremost there is the resource curse where an abundance of a resource, such as oil and diamonds, should make the entire country wealthy but the money ends up finding its way to the pockets of the ruling class. Nigeria is a prime example of this, where the late president and leader of the People’s Democratic Party Umaru Yar'Adua corrupted the country by consuming the oil wealth. Yar'Adua exhibits what Diamond calls personal rule, which is basically authoritarian rule but for personal gain and pleasure. Personal rule is when citizens are dependent on politicians for their needs, and thus bribery and corruption flow easily and money trickles up to the ruler this way. Many countries in Africa have presidents that engage in this form of rule, and trying to convince these heads of states that democracy is a better system is a battle. Moreover, these personal rulers can also live off of international monetary and material aid, which according to Diamond is the biggest inhibitor of democracy in Africa. Uganda political leaders led by Museveni have blatantly stolen aid money, committed bribes and blackmailed too. In essence these are the duties of personal rule. Yet all this corruption and money grabbing can lead to civil violence as citizens rise up against the rulers but are oppressed in doing so because civil liberties are not free generally in Africa. It is also difficult to campaign without threats, injury and surveillance, and thus hard to get dictators out of power and change the political system and economy.

Lastly is the Middle East, which exhibits all the same inhibitors of democracy that Africa does, but to a different extent because of Islamic law and religiosity. Extreme political Islam and sharia law oppose democratic values because human rights are not entirely respected in the law code. More importantly, it is hard to debate or fight against religious law in court, because it is divine and knows no wrong. Also, monarchies and family rule prohibit others from leading countries that have been ruled by the same family for generations like in Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. And for this reason, I believe that the Middle East will be the most difficult moving towards democracy. Many countries sustain itself on their vast oil wealth, but with little other economic opportunities and high poverty rates, when the oil runs out the situation will turn ugly. It is not to say that a democratic Middle East will alleviate the economic situation, but as long as oil is in the ground, there will be power hungry rulers. The ruling parties of the country have not changed much over the years and the situation does not look to be any better in the future. Ruling parties are holding on because there is nothing else available in the region. Islam is a factor too, but this will be explained in the next section. There is also extremist views of the West in the general public, which will not foster democratic change because it is a ‘Western system.” In sum, the Middle East will have the furthest to go in transitioning to democracy and getting its act together to give the residents of the region more opportunity.

In conjunction with the Middle East, the debate about whether Islam is compatible with democracy must be noted. According to an attitudinal survey on democracy and interviews with political scientists, Diamond shows that many citizens from Islamic societies agree with democratic principles and view democracy as a good, legitimate governmental system. But at the same time, many respondents also view Islam and democracy as co-existing, rather than separating the two as in the United States. It is unclear if Islam and democracy are compatible if they are not separated; but just being a Muslim is not incompatible with living under or wanting to live under a democracy. Political Islam exists, but when it is taken to extreme like the way the Muslim Brotherhood and Zawahiri utilize political Islam, then the principles of Islam conflict with those of democracy. Moreover, Islam law (sharia) would take priority over democracy, rendering democracy void. For example, Iran and Saudi Arabia both follow forms of sharia law and are not democratic. But pressure from the West is beginning to open up Saudi Arabia to democratic values and Iran is perhaps not the best indicator of the future. Perhaps Jordan, Lebanon, or Morocco (who has underwent political reforms and has multiparty system but still remains a repressive regime), are better indicators of Islam and democracy as all three countries have experienced bits of democratic change.

Although voting does not solidify a country as democratic, it seems when countries in the Middle East are able to vote, Islamic based parties do well (but are then repressed). Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood have a track record of this. Diamond does not see this as threatening to democracy, rather Islamic political parties must define their platform and be tolerant of those who may not follow their party, as well as be tolerant of potential laws that fall outside of sharia. Diamond believes that to gain democracy in the Middle East and other Muslim-dominated countries, Islam will inevitably be part of the political spectrum. Thus there must be a balance between democracy and Islam that will appeal to the general public in solidifying democracy while incorporating Islam.

Usually when one thinks about democracy America comes to mind. It was the model of democracy and it tried to export this model around the world, but recently America itself has been experiencing problems, rendering its democratic political system weak. First, participation in voting as well as working and volunteering for political causes has declined since the 1970s. It appears America’s youth is not as politically active as it once was, where campus demonstrations against war and the government were not uncommon. On the plus side, political activism was up during President Obama’s campaign, but Diamond’s book was published before this event. Second, lobbying politicians to pass bills that aid certain industries is not entirely democratic. Granted one has the right to push for the most s/he can get, lobbying takes this to the next step because some times politicians may be bribed by these platforms.

As aforementioned, lobbying can lead to corruption, which is the third aspect of America’s weak democracy. Although it is impossible to completely stamp corruption out, America has its share of illegal transactions. Diamond points out that the Department of Justice charges 100 state officials each year with corruption. Of course corruption can be caused by a number of factors, but campaign financing, in relation to lobbying, is large source. Politicians will write things off on their campaign ticket, which should actually be paid personally. Also, wealthy and large corporate donors may give money with strings attached, meaning the politician must support bills that will benefit the donor. If a major bill is on the table, a politician may try to add in an earmark to the bill, that basically adds extra money to the bill for a political interest. Much money is wasted this way, need I bring up the “bridge to nowhere” earmark? Lastly, all of this needs to be transparent, which it is not entirely.

America has been in the business of exporting its democratic model democracy has been experiencing structural deficiencies for quite some time and well before the PATRIOT ACT. It should still persist in beckoning for democratic change throughout the world but at the same time try to be a beacon of hope and change its way domestically. If the US admits it has gone astray from the democratic path and is trying to solve its problems, this gives more accountability to US foreign policy because it shows that the US is not perfect and is still transitioning itself to a full-fledged democracy.

Diamond's Democracy

This is a semi-book review of Larry Diamond's The Spirit of Democracy. I will probably list it in two to three parts.

Have no fear, democracy is here. Well kind of, is how Larry Diamond argues the prospects of democracy expanding the globe. Although he realizes there are many obstacles to achieving democracy in most regions of the world, there is at least progression and movement toward more democratic means and principles in governance and civil society. Diamond focuses on all the little improvements in societies from Latin America, Africa, and Asia to show that the spirit of democracy is alive and true; however, as he acknowledges, it remains to be seen whether these small steps will produce widespread democratic change. But to get to actual democratic change, society needs to support it, and Diamond believes that the pro-democracy attitude is taking shape. Referencing a 2001 World Values Survey that interviewed people from every region of the world asking to agree or disagree with statements on democratic values, over 80% of all respondents agreed that democracy is the best form of government and every region was over the 50% threshold (most further from 50%) on agreeing that leaders should not be dictators. Diamond utilizes this survey to support his optimism that democracy can, and will, flourish outside the West.
Diamond also focuses on the third wave of democracies, starting in the 1970s with Portugal and consists of countries such as Nepal, the fall of the USSR, Serbia, and Bosnia. This third wave can be sustained, or given into a fourth wave in the future, but he notes that there has been a recent reversal in democratic freedoms throughout the world, including the United States. The Middle East is the only region that has stagnated through the democratic third wave, not having any more freedom. Countries like Pakistan and Russia, which in the 1990s were emerging democracies, albeit with their many flaws, have returned to more autocratic ruling under Vladimir Putin and former president Pervez Musharraf. Both Putin and Musharraf have cracked down on the opposition, freedom of speech, and elections have not been free or fair. Other leading political parties in countries such as Nigeria and Venezuela hold on to power through amending the constitution and election fraud. There is no real explanation for the reverse-democracy movements, but many of these countries have been consolidating power since the start of the new century. Yet Diamond sees through this reversal and believes that these societies are pinning for democratic change.
Diamond uses many sources to support his research, including but not limited to academia, nongovernmental organizations, international organizations, think tanks, news articles, and surveys. But he also uses and cites the independent organization Freedom House, which is a leader in analyzing and reporting on every country’s freedom while also supporting democracy and human rights around the globe. He utilizes Freedom House’s research on the freedoms allowed in a given country, consisting of civil and political rights as base for defining and listing democratic countries in order to back his own theories in the book. Additionally, Diamond uses Freedom House’s ‘freedom score’ to describe the positive or negative democratic progress in a country. For example, when writing about South Africa, he leads by stating that Freedom House recently downgraded South Africa’s freedom rating, and from there goes into South Africa’s political and societal problems.
Democracy can spread throughout the world but it will not do so overnight nor will it do so under a façade of democratic institutions, a.k.a. weak democracies. Democracy will only run its true course and be sustained when elements such as fair rule of law, popular sovereignty, and leadership accountability are implemented and followed. In short, these are the democratic values. Elections must be open and free. All candidates should be allowed access to run only because disallowing the opposition to run is counterproductive, such as in Iran and China. Diamond does make a point that elections are not enough to be called a democracy (even if the elections are free and fair). Rather there are certain elements that can make a democracy strong, as well as factors that make one weak.
Diamond points to ten elements that define strong democracies. The list contains aspects such as the right to expression, religion, to run for office, to vote freely; equality of all races and ethnic groups; independent judiciary and due process of law; balance of executive and legislative powers; civilian control over the armed forces, and; a functioning civil society. Countries that possess a majority of these elements are stronger democracies than the rest. Western states display them, although none of these countries can be labeled a perfect democracy, and most, especially America, are far from perfect. On the other hand, a political system like Jordan, where citizens can vote and enjoy democratic elements such as a constitution and elected assembly, but cannot vote the main leader out of power are what Diamond calls a pseudodemocracy. As seen in the name, pseudodemocracies are weak democracies. Weak political systems like Jordan’s obviously has consequences for citizens – they cannot effectively have a say in governing the country nor do they have a means of recourse if they oppose the rule of the leader. King Abdullah II retains authoritarian power even though his country has been influenced by the West and has opened up for some democratic values. A more proper term for Jordan may be an electoral authoritarian regime because the opposition does not really have a chance to campaign legitimately and are also bullied and threatened. Zimbabwe can fall into this category as it held elections (though far from free and fair) in 2002 and 2008, and supposedly has an elected assembly; yet Mugabe’s regime is not considered democratic. There is also racial and civil strife, no accountability on the leadership level, and corruption on all state levels in Zimbabwe. Again, just because a country has electoral systems that border free and fair, this does not constitute a democratic government. In sum, weak democracies exist because of the elites and their power structure, whereas strong democracies flourish not only because the leaders are willing to follow the law, but also because there is an active civil society.
But to get from a pseudodemocracy to a true democracy, it must be promoted, and there are multiple ways to do so. The most effective method is through regional cooperation and organizations, such as the Organization of American States (OAS) European Union (EU) and its affiliate organizations, and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The OAS has developed a regional approach to aiding or helping sustain democracy by sending observer missions to countries that may be in crises to alleviate the situation and dissuade a democratic pullback. Diamond notes that the observer mission leaves a lot to be desired, and much more is needed in OAS’s agenda to efficiently promote and develop democracy. The ICC is also a good example of an international organization that benefits the international community and promotes a democratic judicial system as well as rule of law.
Then there is political and developmental assistance that usually comes from other countries or organizations to a target country. Political assistance and developmental assistance are different, though both are usually tied to giving money. Of course no matter how much money or assistance is provided to a country, that country must have the political will to change its current political systems to a more democratic one. Yet these organizations do not just dole out money; the country must be viewed as either a strong potential candidate for democracy or be an emerging democracy. Organizations like USAID and UNDP can provide both, but the National Democratic Institute and European Commission affiliates, such as the Liaison Offices to potential EU candidate countries, focus on political change. Political assistance can include projects like improving judicial oversight by training judges, improving policing by training police, and domestic election monitoring. Development assistance usually consists of economic and financial projects.
Granted many current democratic states support and donate to various organizations like USAID and UNDP, a state’s foreign policy is also a good advocator of democracy – as long as it is not hypocritical. For example, the US urges many nations to transition to democracy with its help, yet US foreign policy also supports monarchies like Saudi Arabia and dictators like Hosani Mubarak of Egypt. This is conflicting and is used as political support for elite leaders running on anti-American campaigns. Nevertheless, any type of democratic assistance regardless of where it comes from or how it is issued should be concentrated on local civil society. Democracy building is more effective from the ground up and sometimes it is better to advert from funding the government.
In fact, just donating money directly to the government is one of the not so effective ways to promote democratic change. If the government is corrupt or lacks the will to change, then most likely the money will just go to the elites’ pockets. A good example of this is Pakistan, where close to $10 billion of aid money from the US has been donated to the country and not much of it is accounted for. This is a case in point in not using aid money efficiently. But if there are plans to aid a poor country in transition to democracy, one should not set absurd expectations for the country to meet goals. For instance, if electoral fraud is common, then it is infeasible to demand that the next election be fraud-free; rather if oversight improvements are made and ballot boxes are not stuffed as much as previously, it is a step in the right direction. Democratic change takes a while (230 years and counting for the US), it will certainly not take place overnight. At the same time one should not set expectations too low, provide aid unconditionally, or rely on promises that things will get done from the ruling elite. Gullibility and a lack of oversight of the aid program can give way to corruption and embezzlement. Therefore when providing democratic assistance, be it political or economic, there needs to be the right scale approach. Depending on the size of the country, the right amount of money and manpower needs to be utilized. Providing $30 million dollars may help the citizens of Malawi but it will only make a dent on the citizenry of Nigeria.
If democracy is promoted effectively to non-democracies, and here Diamond focuses on authoritarian states, it will help break the authoritarian changes but may not necessarily guarantee a regime change for the better. To successfully convert a state to democracy external and internal factors must both be present. External factors, like those mentioned above, would be that of economic and political assistance offered from other countries and organizations. Yet it needs to be leveraged, like a stick and carrot approach, where the funding for the government must be used to govern and must be distributed in a way that affects the majority of the population. In other words there needs to be conditionality, where the more cooperative and responsive governments get more money, usually in advance, for preparing the state to transition to more democratic means. Another leveraged policy tool is sanctions, which have been applied numerously to North Korea and Iran, but has not effected change thus far. More importantly, regional help from friendly neighboring states can transfer knowledge and democratic models across borders, perhaps taking part in a “snowballing effect,” as was seen in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism. Neighboring states can also apply foreign policies that encourage liberalism and human rights. But it must be noted that foreign policy and leverage/conditionality may not affect larger nations like China and Russia, and although democratization by force may be an option, after Iraq and Afghanistan it is ill advised.