The Current
American Debate on
Democracy Misses the Point
By JONATHAN POWER
LONDON-- Not even the cynics consumed
by South Korea's dire economic crisis doubted that the
country's general election would be honest, above-board,
with a result that would meet with widespread acquiescence
both at home and abroad. Yet only 18 years ago this country
was a dictatorship; only 50 years ago a poverty-ridden
village economy. For all the magnitude of its present
financial troubles it cannot be gainsaid that South Korea
has gone from rags to riches, from one man rule to one man
(and one woman) one vote in a generation. It is truly one of
the wonders of our age. After all, only in the late 1940s
did most western countries become fully-fledged democracies,
with universal adult suffrage.
Outstanding through the march of time
South Korea's progress has been, it is part of a broader
movement that has swept most of the world in recent decades.
Last year I reported in my
pre-Christmas column that 1996 had been a vintage, landmark
year for the spread of political rights and civil liberties.
79 of the world's 191 countries could be considered totally
free and another 59 relatively free societies. Altogether
some 62% of the world's population were free of tyrranical
rule.
This year, in a report published
tomorrow (Thursday) Freedom House, the New York-based body
that tracks these trends says "the wave of a global
democratization may have peaked." Although there has been a
small increase in the number of democracies, China and the
Arab countries (with the exception of Jordan, Kuwait and
Morocco) remain democracy backwaters and show few signs of
forward momentum.
This slowing of the previous pace has
triggered a strange debate, catalyzed by the lead article in
the current issue of Foreign Affairs, written by its
managing editor, Fareed Zakaria. His thesis is that we now
confront the distgurbing phenomenon of "illiberal
democracy". We may have a large number of democracies, he
argues, but many of them do not contain a critical
ingredient for long-term success-- "constitutional
liberalism," i.e. the rule of law, a separation of powers
and the protection of basic liberties, of speech, assembly,
religion and property. The danger of this, as Stephen
Rosenfeld writes in the Washington Post, is that "democracy
can become a ticket to a crude anything-goes
majoritarianism."
But does it? Democracy
Russian-Yeltsin-style or Mexican-Zedillo-style or
Malaysian-Mahathir-style may be only part of the loaf, but
isn't it rather more than half a loaf?
The critics of so-called "illiberal
democracy" see only a snapshot. They miss where the country
in question is coming from and thus don't perceive the
likely destination. If one takes the 57 elected democracies
in the Freedom House list that are described as only "partly
free"--Russia, Colombia, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, India,
Senegal etc.--although there may be a tendency for elected
leaders to exercise power arbitrarily most of their leaders
do function within the context of checks and balances in
their power. These are not states that brutally suppress
basic freedoms. Democracy, in fact, can survive in a wide
variety of settings but once established it usually does
work to increase the chances for the development of a
broader range of freedoms. Today, as Freedom House reports,
"democracies are gradually expanding the broad range of
rights enjoyed by its citizens. In 1995, of 117 democracies
64% were totally free. By 1997, nearly 70% were free." This
trend suggests that far from inhibiting the rule of law, a
vibrant civic society and limited government, electoral
democracy is propelling the global expansion of freedom.
While there are some democratically
elected leaders, such as Slovakia's prime minister Vladimir
Meciar, who practice an authoritarian style of rule and
resort to demagoguery or who, like Pakistan's prime
minister, Nawaz Sherif, use an overwhelming parliamentary
majority to concentrate power, they are the exceptions.
Turkey is a good example of a
democracy on the move (a state of affairs, unfortunately,
not apparent to European Union leaders who once again this
week have blackballed Turkey's membership). Turkey by the
year is expanding its freedoms-- these days the most telling
critics of its human rights abuses are its own press and its
own vibrant civic groups.
This in fact is the tendency, by and
large, of all so called "illiberal democracies." Unlike in
the period between the two world wars, the present sprouting
of democracy shows few signs of withering. Indeed, the
pessimism of the "illiberal democracy" school has a dated
look more influenced by Hitler's Europe than present
world-wide realities. It simply does not square with the
times we now live in. The South Korean story will before too
long, I suspect, be most countries' story.
December 17,
1997, LONDON
Copyright © 1997 By JONATHAN POWER
Note: I can be reached by phone +44 385 351172
and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
|