Measuring democracy

The 2007 Freedom House report published by the influential American think-tank has reported a decline, for the second consecutive year, in democratic freedoms around the globe. The report speaks of a "profoundly disturbing deterioration" in democracy with reversals in 38 countries.

The report, however, makes it clear that the world is still a far better place than it was 25 years ago, meaning that net gains were definitely made after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of military rule in Latin America.

Among the countries mentioned that witnessed a decline in freedoms are Kenya, Pakistan, Nigeria, the Palestinian territories, Bangladesh and Kyrgyzstan, to name a few. Furthermore, 43 countries, representing roughly 36 per cent of the world's population, are labelled 'not free', while no improvements at all were registered in the eight 'worst of the worst' countries, namely Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Burma, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Does this mean that democracy is continually on the decline, that democracy only applies to Western societies and that nothing can to done to encourage its spread around the globe? No, not at all. First of all, even in very volatile situations, people have shown to be in favour of democracy, and have voted in elections, such as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kenya, under difficult conditions. In other countries where no free elections exist, such as in Burma, tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets to demand the right to vote.

These are things which should be both applauded and encouraged by the international community. Also, the idea that democracy is only suitable for the Christian West is false. Turkey, a Muslim country, is a parliamentary democracy, albeit not a perfect one. Japan, a leading Asian and world power is a very strong democracy.

Of course, each country has its own particular set of circumstances, and sometimes a transition to democracy is needed. A country with no history of democracy, or one which is going through a very volatile situation cannot expect to become a democracy overnight. People sometimes prefer to give preference to stability and security rather than democracy, and this is clearly the case in Russia, for example, where the turmoil experienced in the 1990s has unfortunately been associated with Western-style democracy.

In Iraq, one can argue that stability and security should have been given preference over democracy in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's overthrow, as the transition to 'democracy' has been extremely disorderly there.

There is an endless debate going on about the link between economic welfare and rising living standards, and the level of democracy practised by countries. Some argue that the lower the GDP per capita the less likely a country is to be democratic and that there is a definite link between economic progress and political progress. These are valid points and it is certainly true that all genuine democracies are market economies and that democracies are nearly always successful in countries with a high per capita income.

However, these are over-generalisations as China, Russia and the Gulf States, for example, have all witnessed strong economic growth and enjoy a high GDP per capita but are certainly not democracies. Singapore, which has a GDP per capita of $27,000 is only partly free. India, on the other hand, which has also witnessed strong economic growth, has a per capita GDP of only $3,000, yet since independence in 1950 it has always been a strong democracy.

History has shown that most democracies emerge slowly and that there is a link between prosperity and democracy. One hopes, therefore, that as China and Russia continue to enjoy record levels of economic growth, some progress will be made on the political front, but this will probably take a long time, especially in China's case.

Beijing has absolutely no history of democracy, and Russia's democratic past is somewhat limited to the very brief period in 1917 when a Social Democratic administration ruled for a few months before the Bolshevik coup, and during the turbulent 1990s when the Soviet Union broke up.

Should the democratic world strive to encourage and promote democracy around the globe? Yes, definitely, and there should be a level of consistency in the way this is done. There is nothing wrong, for example, with US President George Bush's 'freedom agenda' and the promotion of democracy as a pillar of US foreign policy. However, Mr Bush has been criticised, and I think this is a valid point, for being somewhat selective in the choice of countries the US targets for the encouragement of democratic rule.

One can perhaps be selective on the basis of just how realistic it is to expect democratic rule to be established in a particular country, but not because that country happens to be your ally and friend.

There are some countries where democracy has taken a turn for the worse not because of instability, or a lack of a democratic framework or due to events beyond their control, but simply because their rulers are dictators or have an authoritarian streak in them.

President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is one such example. His authoritarian policies have turned the country into police state and his crazy economic policies have created a state on the verge of collapse. Such leaders need to be shunned by the international community while the democratic opposition movements in these states should be encouraged and supported.

We should always keep faith in democracy, even when particular situations look very bleak. After all, we in Malta passed through a bad phase in the 1980s and today we are not only a strong democracy but a member of the European Union. It is important to be both consistent and realistic when promoting democracy on a global scale, taking note of a country's particular circumstances and history, but not allowing leaders to exaggerate such circumstances in order to legitimise dictatorial rule.