In the years between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, we American Exceptionalists were on quite a roll; that roll was about “the wave of expanding Democracy”.
With the fall of the Second World – the commies – the First World would be strengthened to spread the one-person-one-vote, choose-your-path gospel to the “Third World”.
Bob Collins at MPR’s NewsCut notes that it doesn’t seem to be working out at the moment:
So what happened?
The Boston Globe’s Joshua Kurlantzick today uses Thailand as an example of a receding wave. The streets of Thailand have been crammed with protesters wearing the color of the former monarchy, demanding an end to the reign of the democratically elected prime minister. Last week, they got their wish.
The events unfolding in Thailand are part of a gathering global revolt against democracy. In 2007, the number of countries with declining freedoms exceeded those with advancing freedoms by nearly four to one, according to a recent report by Freedom House, an organization that monitors global democracy trends.
How could this be? Blame the middle class, Kurlantzick says.
As a country develops a true middle class, these urban, educated citizens insist on more rights in order to protect their economic and social interests. Eventually, as the size of the middle class grows, those demands become so overwhelming that democracy is inevitable. But now, it appears, the middle class in some nations has turned into an antidemocratic force. Young democracy, with weak institutions, often brings to power, at first, elected leaders who actually don’t care that much about upholding democracy. As these demagogues tear down the very reforms the middle classes built, those same middle classes turn against the leaders, and then against the system itself, bringing democracy to collapse.
“Elected dictators” are not just a problem in Thailand, but Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, Indonesia, and — the big one — Russia, the poster child for tension between pro- and anti-democracy forces.
Both pieces bring up some interesting questions, with by-no-means simple answers.
For starters, I question the validity of Kurlantzick’s numbers; using the raw number of nations as a metric can be misleading; if Andorra, Luxembourg and Montenegro (hypothetically) adopt dictatorships, and India is democratic , do you count the nations (3:1 for dictators) or by population (hundreds to one for democracy)?
And for all of the alarmism of the conclusion, it’s worth remembering that it’s been worse; in the Thirties, the intellectual current was to assume socialism, even authoritarianism, was going to win out in the end; in the Sixties and Seventies, people assumed Communism was here to stay, and the red wave engulfed much of the Third World.
Still – nations like Russia and Thailand are hardly small potatoes; there would seem to be a problem here.
Reading Paul Johnson’s classic “The Birth Of The Modern”, it’s interesting to note that so much of what we recognize as the “Modern World” today – from direct democracy to abolition of slavery to the asphalt road, steam engines and pants – got its start between 1815 and 1840 or so.
Among the more subtle and yet wide-sweeping changes was the notion on the part of people in the “liberal” (with a small “l”) west that Democracy was the way things should be. It’s not always been a given, even in the West; it took many sweeping intellectual changes – the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment – to set the philosophical stage for the notion that Man can rule himself.
Huge swathes of the world never had a Renaissance or an Enlightenment (and as to the Reformation, many of the world’s major religions are not nearly as tolerant of dissent and uppitiness on the part of the peasants as Judeo-Christianity have been). Russian society in particular never had any of the benefits of the change in Western intellectual tradition; authority (especially the authority to protect one from rampaging Huns, Tartars or Nazis) is government’s most important attribute to great swathes of Russian society.
The real question isn’t whether nations with long, illiberal histories – Bolivia, Thailand, Russia, Indonesia, Mexico – have a hard time adopting democracy. The real, important question is how any nation with a long, illiberal history – India, Colombia, Mali, Senegal – adopt it at all, and how we can help similar nations with similiar traditiosn – Iraq, Afghanistan – do better in much, much less time.
Which leads us to the obvious question: How does the U.S. respond to this?
That, on the other hand, is easy. We do what we did in 1983; we remain the best, healthiest democracy in the world; we provide a strong contrast with the alternatives; we remain the place on this planet where everyone wants to go (and, since they can’t, we provide a model for them to copy in their own countries). And we do what we did in 1948; stand up for fledgeling democracies against totalitarians – diplomatically, materially, and if necessary (heaven forfend) militarily, with all the moral and material strength we have.
Which necessitates having a government that believes in American exceptionalism – that this is the kind of place and system worth defending and exporting.
Glad you asked.
Middle classes do not crave democracy what they crave is stability. If it’s a stable democracy all the better, but middle classes will choose a stable dictatorship over an unstable democracy and have done so repeatedly throughout all of history (this isn’t some kind of recent trend).
That is why democracy is the work of patriots who sometimes have to sacrifice their middle class values (like their own prosperity and self-interest) to ensure that democracy thrives.
Margaret is right. Democracy is an unstable state (pardon the pun) requiring a unique set of circumstances. Those patriots who founded the US were quite unique and certainly in stark contrast to those of the French Revolution.
Rome before the Caesars was actually very democratic and when the Senate proved to be hopelessly corrupt and inept at governing the stage was set for the Caesars to overthrow the democracy and replace it with a totalitarian system.
(Hmmm, a hopeless corrupt and inept Senate? I believe there’s a current similarity, but I just can’t place where…)
We are FAR from the healthiest democracy in the world. We have the best Constitutional structure.
However, we have the most base of political discussions. We focus on utter nonsense FAR more than most of the more developed democracies, and our elections are turning into running jokes.
For example – McCain runs an add saying that Barack Obama supports sex education for kindergartners. What Obama supported was teaching kindergartners what ‘bad touching’ represents as a method to help protect them from sexual abuse. How can it possibly be bad to day “this is your ‘private area’ or ‘penis’ or whatever, and say ‘no one but mommy or daddy should be touching you, and only to help you stay clean’ if someone does, it’s not ok and it’s not something if they tell you to keep it a secret, you should. Tell your mom or dad.’ How is that POSSIBLY bad?
It’s not, but here we are – with idiotic commercials – untrue commercials.
I have a billion things to do today, I have personal relationships within Lehman Brothers, and I get to send regret e-mails to friends who’ve just lost their jobs today – in this HEALTHIEST of democracies, this BEST of all possible economies…this ‘just another down cycle’ world.
It isn’t just another down cycle folks – I warned you 4 years ago about Fannie Mae, Berg didn’t – I warned you of the coming storms because of the unethical split between labor and management, the flat wages, the instability of ARMS, the fact that people were funding their daily living expenses off the equity in their homes – all the net effect of the utter failure and catastrophe that is a supply-side economy – Berg didn’t – Berg was dead bleeping wrong, just as this article is – about the nature of economies – and the political effects and fallout of bad decision making within these ‘best democracies’. You’ve sewn the seeds of disaster, and that crop is coming in, in bumper proportions.
Thailand is STILL home to the world’s longest-reigning monarch. His Majesty is still highly regarded, occasionally intervening as moderator in Thai politics. There is nothing “former” about HM or the historic colors of Thai priest-kings.
Regards,
Ted
We are FAR from the healthiest democracy in the world. We have the best Constitutional structure.
Health is always a relative thing. In terms of tradition, resiliency and, yes, generalized acceptance of republican government and the rule of law as the norm, as well as lack of *fundamental* challenges to democracy and the structure of this country? Yes, in fact, we are the healthiest.
The left tends to judge “health” in terms of programs and services. I reject this approach.
However, we have the most base of political discussions.
Er, have you seen how elections in Taiwan or South Korea go? Please.
For example – McCain runs an add saying that Barack Obama supports sex education for kindergartners.
An ad you disagree with – and which arguably distorts *your* candidate’s position – is a blot on the overall health of our democracy?
You are perhaps a little too closely-focused.
I have a billion things to do today, I have personal relationships within Lehman Brothers, and I get to send regret e-mails to friends who’ve just lost their jobs today – in this HEALTHIEST of democracies, this BEST of all possible economies…this ‘just another down cycle’ world.
Whooooah, little fella. Didn’t say that this moment was the best of all possible economies. Things are dicey out there!
It isn’t just another down cycle folks – I warned you 4 years ago about Fannie Mae, Berg didn’t – I warned you of the coming storms because of the unethical split between labor and management, the flat wages, the instability of ARMS, the fact that people were funding their daily living expenses off the equity in their homes
None of which I disagreed with, then or now!
Peev, you’re making stuff up as you go along again.
Nit picking time.
The United States are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional republic. It makes a difference.
In a true democracy, everybody’s rights are subject to change on the whim of the majority of the people voting today. No stability. Bad place to invest.
In an emerging republic (that is, a republic where nobody knows the rules because they’re making them up as they go along) such as Thailand or Iraq, everybody’s rights are subject to change on the whim of the majority of the legislators voting today. Same problem as above.
In a mature constitutional republic such as Briton or the USA, people’s rights change slowly. More stable. Better place to invest. Not perfect, but better.
A republic, madam, if we can keep it.
.
I warned you 4 years ago about Fannie Mae, Berg didn’t – I warned you of the coming storms because of the unethical split between labor and management, the flat wages, the instability of ARMS, the fact that people were funding their daily living expenses off the equity in their homes
And, Lo, the Peev did warn! And the people, the people did not listen to the Peev! So the Peev did construct an Ark, measuring 90 cubits by the hog’s head, and the Peev then started confusing democracy with economic downturn and, Lo, the people laughed at him, and Peev doth protest: “Screw you guys. . . I’m going home.”
This would be a good place to mention that the United States we live in today is the second effort at creating a perpetual Union. The articles of confederation were replaced by the current constitution in 1789.
The longevity of our “2nd Republic” is a testament to the wisdom of the Founders. For example, at the same time the powers of the central government were increased precautions were taken against ‘factionalism’, the unfortunate tendency, in a pure democracy, for a slim majority to rob a minority of civil rights & property.
The United States are not a democracy.
As an actual political definition recognizable by a high school history teacher on up? Of course not.
But American vernacular has pretty much absorbed “republic” into “democracy”. Most Americans indeed have little concept of “democracy” being anything but a good thing.
I am using, of course, the vernacular.
warned you 4 years ago about Fannie Mae, Berg didn’t –
Sure. And as a scandinavian/scot, I’m all about fiscal responsibility.
But let’s be honest, Peev; over the past
fourtwenty years, you’ve also “warned” about quite a few things that never happened, and indeed which events contradicted completely.Just saying.
Berg didn’t
I’m not going to claim that the big financials are my long suit. You, obviously, work somewhere near the field; it counts for something.
Heck, I never even claimed that I had a neighbor who’s a nobel-winning economist (although one of my radio partners is no slouch in the field…)
Doesn’t this latest crisis go back to foolish fiscal policy by a lot of public, private, and semi-private entities?
It seems to me that the motivation for easy home-based credit goes back to the dot-com collapse. Securities based on stocks dried up and the demand for mortgage-based securities increased. As demand rose it became possible to buy equity at a discount. This created a class of weakly qualified mortgage borrowers. Like stocks in the late 90’s, people in a position to move the market thought that the bubble would inflate forever.
The people I do not feel sorry for are the capitalists who knew the market would collapse but thought they were keeping liquid enough to avoid getting caught in the downturn. And the foolish middle-class and poor people who used their unstable equity as though it were an ATM.