Freedom House’s “Freedom in the World 2014” report indicates that for the eighth consecutive year global political rights and civil liberties have declined around the world. Their report shows that since the 2013 report freedom in 54 countries has registered a decline while in only 40 countries has it improved. They warn of the rise of what they call modern “authoritarianism” where leaders use subtler methods to neutralise (without eliminating) the opposition, and to subvert the rule of law, all the while “maintaining a plausible veneer of order, legitimacy, and prosperity”.
In fact the 21st century seems to have seen something of a disconnect between affluence and political liberty. Where once the democratic West may have thought it had the market cornered on high-living standards (with a few oil-rich exceptions), the free-market authoritarianism of countries from Russia to China now seems to offer the benefits of the West’s high living standards without the disadvantages of its apparently anarchic political system.
Indeed China is by far the largest and most powerful example of free-market authoritarianism, with an economy that by some measures will surpass the size of that of the United States by the end of the decade. And to be sure, the quality of life of 1.7 billion people in modern China is now immeasurably better than that of those living under Communist authoritarianism 40 years ago.
If India is China’s geopolitical counterpoint, whose population of 1.2 billion people recently went to the polls in the World’s largest democratic election, then far from being a celebration of the power of individual liberty, it appeared like an illustration of the failures of democracy.
Instead of ostracising the privileged to make space for bold new visions, people were offered an unattractive choice including members of the ruling dynasties, and populist demagogues. None of these, it seems, will ever have the parliamentary unity and authority to drive through the reforms and implement the policies they need to benefit the people themselves, particularly in the face of self-interested obstruction from the opposition parties.
Similarly, faced with the snarling purposefulness of Vladimir Putin’s Russia as it cynically exploits the EU’s and, to a lesser extent, the USA’s hesitancy in a number of arenas, including Syria and Ukraine, it is tempting (but of course wrong) to bemoan the impotence and indecision of democracy in contrast to the determination of authoritarianism.
As economic growth in the West has slowed and the financial crisis has played out through chaos, recession and finally slow recovery, public disaffection with the political classes has grown, manifest either as violent street protest, declining membership of mainstream political organisations, reductions in polling turnouts, or the electoral success of single issue and radical parties. Notwithstanding this, however, it is wrong to lose faith in the power of pure democracy unsullied by authoritarianism.
The 19th century historian, Edward Creasy, described the Spanish Empire of Charles V and Philip II (which was a powerful autarchy built on the more libertarian institutions of the various pre-existing nations of the Spanish Peninsula) by observing that “no nation is ever so formidable to its neighbours, for a time, as is a nation, which, after being trained up in self-government, passes suddenly under a despotic ruler. The energy of democratic institutions survives for a few generations, and to it are superadded the decision and certainty which are the attributes of government, when all its powers are directed by a single mind.”
While Creasy was describing free-states that had succumbed to an absolute monarchy, his point was that democratic institutions focused by a single mind are a powerful combination for a time. Eventually, however, they will succumb to corruption and decadent despotism.
Despots are good at replicating and rapidly implementing tested models of economic success. Yet the World we live in, socially, economically, and politically, is a dynamic environment: yesterday’s responses will not necessarily address tomorrow’s problems. Consequently nations need to continually reinvent themselves, they need to redefine their visions, ambitions and expertise, they need to reaffirm the social contract through an inclusive process that asks of all people what they want. It is only through effective democracy that the interests of those in power are genuinely aligned with (and constrained by) those they rule over. Untrammelled democracy works not despite its self-organising raucousness, but, like the market place of ideas that it is, because of it.
Between 22-25 May, 2014 the 503.7 million people of the European Union will elect 751 MEPs of whom Malta elects its share. Irrespective of political affiliation, or sentiment towards the European Union itself, as Europeans the people of Malta are among those privileged in history to have the opportunity to create their future; which is why it is so essential to go out and vote in the European parliamentary elections.