Democracy won’t always win. We would like to think it will because the alternative is far too horrid to contemplate. However, no matter how great and honourable the principles underpinning democracy are, there is nothing which suggests that it will triumph in the battle of ideas.
There is no precedent in history where a single political system survives over the rest. The once-glorious empires are now disbanded. Powerful monarchs were deposed. Great nations are no longer. Seemingly unbeatable superpowers are now a shadow of what they once were. Republican systems fail.
There was a time when democracy seemed to be on the ascendance.
The British Empire allowed for the so-called dominion status. These countries are now leading world democracies. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are living proof of the efficacy of the Westminster system of government.
In the wake of World War II, Germany and Italy rose from the ashes of devastating dictatorships. The end of the Cold War led to a process of democratisation in Eastern Europe.
For a while, there was a glimmer of hope even in the most despicable autocracies. Before Vladimir Putin consolidated his grip on power, Russia seemed to be embracing political and economic reform. Before the authorities quashed protests in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese seemed to thirst for democratic reform. The so-called Arab Spring gave the illusion that things might change further in North Africa and the Middle East. These failures were a prelude of things to come.
By focussing on the successes of democracy, we might be creating the false impression that democracy is an inevitable outcome. When one looks closer at many of these examples, one realises that there was nothing inevitable about their outcome. If anything, democracy triumphed and survived against all the odds.
Democracy survived all-encompassing paternalistic socialism which stops personal initiative and free enterprise in their tracks. Democracy had to battle against the temptation of a dominant state, which arbitrarily asserts its power.
Its fundamental principles are challenged by the primordial appeal of populism, by powerful business interests and lobby groups. Its structures can always succumb to the threat of violence, the corroding influence of crime and the fear of terrorism.
If we seek lessons from history, we can deduce this: democracy was successful for only a very brief period and the path to reach this was long and painful. Placed in a wider time-continuum, this period is almost negligible.
Many labour in the illusion that the strength of democracy lies in the ballot box. It doesn’t. Democracy goes beyond the right to vote. Russian interference in the US electoral process demonstrates how vulnerable the electoral process can be.
Democracy is often defined as “rule by the people” (although this does not stop at majority rule). The distribution of power and citizenship are two crucial elements which enrich a democracy.
If power is distributed in institutions which check each other and act independently of one another, then a remedy can be provided even when electoral systems are compromised and when political systems are close to breaking point.
Democracy had to battle against the temptation of a dominant state, which arbitrarily asserts its power
Respect for institutions, for their traditions, history and for the procedures and norms they set is an essential part of honouring the sovereignty of the people. It is in the public interest that such institutions should act, and it is through these institutions that democracy can prevail. When these institutions begin to crumble, what hope is there for democracy?
The second crucial element in a democracy is what the Canadian intellectual and former politician Michael Ignatieff terms as “the spine of citizenship”. Every nation has its divisions as a result of differences in race, politics, language, religion or geography. Ignatieff argues that one of the principal roles of government should be to establish “equal conditions of citizenship”.
He clarifies that this does not mean “big or intrusive government” since citizenship has to mean freedom. It does, however, necessitate that every citizen is treated in a meritocratic manner, with equal access to public services. In this respect, there is a great correlation between the role of independent institutions and the benefits of being a citizen in a democracy.
In the concluding pages of his book Fire and Ashes, Ignatieff makes a frightening but pertinent observation: “This faith in the people is on trial in our time.”
He notes that half the world is dominated by regimes that “combat authoritarian oligarchy with market principles”. Their guiding ideologies are fundamentally opposed to democracy: “They all proclaim their superiority to the cumbersome, partisan, divided democratic politics of our free societies.”
He challenges his readers to think about the success of democracy: “There is no guarantee that history is on liberty’s side or that democracy will prevail against its resurgent competitors.”
This is a reality we must grapple with; do we, as citizens, want to live in a democracy which challenges us or do we want to live in comfortable autocracy?
Ignatieff’s parting remarks are directed towards politicians since they the individuals whose actions shape democratic institutions: “You are in the arena because the vindication democracy needs most is not in words but in deeds, not in theory but action. You are the custodian of democracy, of a relationship of trust with the people, but also of the institutions of your country.”
These words speak true to every citizen since every one of us engages in the political arena. We are also called to vindicate democracy through our deeds, and we are also its custodian. Regardless of how we engage in public life, we need to possess the courage to hold our political class to these tasks.
André DeBattista is an independent researcher in politics and international relations.
andre.deb@gmail.com