Larry Diamond of the Hoover Institution and the Freeman Spogli Institute of global Studies at Stanford University advises how to end the “democratic recession” in the world. It points out in the diary abroad Affairs in an article entitled “How to end the democratic recession” that a fresh manual on the fight against autocracy is needed.
In his opinion, although "Global perspectives for democracy are unclear, if not even depressing", the "political extremism, polarisation and distrust" of liberal democracies with a long tradition is widespread, but "there are flashes of the sun behind the clouds". Bangladesh is 1 of the countries that show how to act to force "autocrats" to resign.
The author writes that "the abrupt resignation and escape of Bangladesh's Prime Minister Sheik Hasina into exile attracted small attention from the world, while "its overthrow may prove significant". Hasina, daughter of the independency leader and first president of Bangladesh, served as head of government from 1996 to 2001. She again became Prime Minister in 2008 and over the next 3 terms over the next 15 years ruled with expanding ruthlessness. She took control of the courts, government agencies, and the police, utilizing them to silence the media, persecute political opponents and control private businesses. The female trampled on constitutional norms to the point that the opposition boycotted elections.
The situation changed this year. In January 2024, Hasina, preparing for the start of her 4th consecutive term, met with many social protests. The situation deteriorated in June this year erstwhile the Prime Minister announced the restoration of the quota strategy in the run for government positions, which favored Hasina's political base. As a result, students began to strike. Against them, the Prime Minister sent troops and police. Hundreds of civilians were killed as a consequence of the riot and over 20,000 people were injured. Over 10,000 people have been arrested. The government's violent reaction has mobilised society, initially transforming a tiny protest movement (it would seem for trivial reasons) into a national run of civilian disobedience against tyranny and corruption. Hasina lost military support and had to flee to India.
Bangladesh has not succeeded in institutionalising the "autocracy" as in China, Iran or Russia and therefore, according to the author of the opinion in "Foreign Affairs", it is possible to usage the experience there to combat "many autocratic regimes that have emerged in the last decade" and "followed a road akin to Bangladesh".
For example, El Salvador, Hungary, Nicaragua, Serbia, Tunisia, Turkey and Venezuela are among these countries. In another countries, "similar tools" have been utilized to "degrad democracy" e.g. Georgia, Honduras, India, Indonesia, the Philippines or Sri Lanka. Non-liberal practices have besides undermined the quality of democracy and public support for democracy in Botswana and Mauritius, the oldest multiparty systems in Africa. The same is actual in Mongolia and South Africa or Mexico.
These countries have not yet developed "fully" dictatorships, but, as politicalists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way suggest, they have joined "competitive, authoritarian regimes". In specified governments, the ruling elites do not respect constitutional norms that let free elections and accountability of the government, but besides the public does not tolerate the complete elimination of individual freedoms, pluralism, multiparty elections, or the anticipation of changing power. This included Kenya, Nigeria, and Tanzania for any time, and now Pakistan and Thailand, which have a somewhat complicated situation due to the anticipation of political veto by the armed forces.
The author sees weaknesses in the "autocracy" in Venezuela, Turkey and Thailand. He praises the “shocking victories of the opposition in elections” in Poland and Guatemala, which “bring back democratic practices”. There's an election phrase in Malaysia. That is why the imagination is that "the determined interior fronts of the opposition, supported by a larger community of liberal democracies, can reverse the trend of global withdrawal of democracy".
"To succeed, they will gotta face anti-democratic trends, weaken the pillars supporting the false democracy of authoritarian populism and apply the conclusions of erstwhile successful campaigns against authoritarian rulers". The aim is that the opposition "starts to follow the Handbook of Democratic Change" to reverse the trend of the withdrawal of democracy, which has continued since 2006.
How to do it. First of all, by organising "colour revolutions", fueling interior protest movements, by providing by another democracies liberal support measures for protests, censoring messages on social media that facilitated the emergence of "non-liberal populist parties".
"Today's autocrats come to power, mainly at ballot boxes and keep it, retaining the facade of competitive elections. Of the around 30 countries that have lost democracy since 2006, all but 3 (the countries of the Saheli coup – Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger) have implemented this scheme. Having votes gives autocrats the right to legitimize, but besides makes them vulnerable. The elections they organize can be profoundly unfair, and the incumbent autocrat can lose anyway, and be forced to leave office. However, in order to reconstruct democracy through elections, national defenders of democracy and their supporters abroad must be able to admit authoritarian populism and realize how it works," writes Diamond.
He states that "the populists are anti-institutional", "discredit existing economical and political institutions, or even the constitution itself, as rotten structures of the rotten elite. They then disassemble organization safeguards and arm state power."
At the social level, populists are to reject pluralism, “many ways of reasoning and believing”, persecuting others for “faith, ideology, national origins or sexual identity”.
Populism besides has a "personalistic and hegemonic character". “The leaders are the deliverers of their countries from the forces of evil, they must be given extraordinary, unfettered power. Elections are no longer instruments of political work and coercion, but alternatively plebiscites aimed at restoring the credibility of leaders and their political monopolies."
"Inevitably authoritarian, populist government becomes intolerant, xenophobic and corrupt", more fanatic and preys on public funds.
In this fight against populists, the key function is to "dismask their vanity, duality and selling" and to show that "populism" "is not a defence of a nation but a fraud towards people". That's why journalists and opponents gotta track corruption, study any abuses. Regulatory authorities, audit agencies, judiciary, police, civilian service and legislative authority should be utilized for these purposes. "Civil society elements, specified as bar chambers, trade unions, student groups and another professional and civilian organisations, can be crucial allies on this issue. opposition is more effective if it is mobilized early; the longer authoritarian populists persist in power, the more they break organization constraints. 1 of the reasons why non-liberal parties did not full overthrow democracy in Poland or at first in Mexico, another than Hungary, Turkey or Venezuela, was that they did not gain a adequate majority in parliament or by direct vote on a change of constitution. There remained adequate independency of the courts and institutions, (...). This regulation was abolished in Mexico along with the June elections erstwhile López Obrador's organization won adequate seats in legislature to push through a change of constitution. erstwhile the authoritarian task conquers the institutions of the country, opposition within the state will no longer be possible. To overcome it, it will be essential to mobilise the masses."
Mobilizing masses, the author recommends that we strive to guarantee that protests are peaceful in order to operate “within legitimate organization limits”. However, the "most promising way" to reverse the collapse of democracy is to gain power as a consequence of elections.
The mobilisation of the opposition and the "colour revolutions" which "have led to democratic change after the disputed elections in the Philippines in 1986 and then Serbia in 2000, Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004–2005 and Kyrgyzstan in 2005" are not enough. In any cases external force from liberal democracies is needed.
Equally crucial is media pressure, broad political appeal, mobilising a larger electorate base, even seeking voters who have supported an autocrat in the past. In seeking broad support, the message should not polarise, rather, it should be guided by "empathy and humility, welcoming culturally, ethnically and ideologically diverse segments of society to join the democratic issue".
The author gave an example of the Turkish opposition run in the 2019 and 2024 local elections, which implemented a strategy of "radical love", that is, "clear rejection of hatred rhetoric and division of the ruling Justice and improvement Party". Campaigns should focus on issues applicable to average voters, specified as "improving the country's economical performance, ending corruption and providing services that will improve citizens' lives". We must hit a note of patriotism and strengthen national pride with democracy. Naturally, those who want to gain power must present a imagination of a "better future". Campaigns should be creative, full of energy, joy, etc.
Liberal democracies must besides engage more "diplomatically". Brazil, the United States and democracies in Latin America and Europe should coordinate their efforts to, among another things, offer Maduro not to compete in exchange for the transfer of power to Venezuela.
"Liberal democracies in the planet must strengthen their external defences and work more closely together to keep an economic, military and technological advantage that deprives anti-democratic opponents of the anticipation of dominance in global politics and subduing rival positions," writes the opinion author in abroad Affairs.
"At the same time, as highlighted by fresh electoral gains of extremist populist forces both right-wing and left-wing in France and Germany, democratic leaders must not neglect their interior defence. Both emerging and mature democracies request a strategy to defy the siren's singing of non-liberal populism," observes the author, adding that the long-term ruling in liberal democracies must yet lead "an effective policy to combat crime and terrorism, manage national borders, mitigate social divisions and supply wide access to economical opportunities and security".
censorship and combating “disinformation and secret influence” stay an crucial issue in the fight against “autocracy”. The author believes that "no country can be allowed to quit the anticipation of democratic change".
In turn, "a coordinated strategy of global engagement to advance free elections could slow the march of non-liberal populism, strengthen civilian society, aid reconstruct the vitality of democracy in key countries and bring the top harvest of democratic change since the beginning of the global democratic recession". He adds that "when democracy regains momentum, even established dictatorships will be under pressure".
If a conflict is not undertaken to flourish democracy, then "alternative is the continuous authoritarian drift towards a planet of increasing polarization, repression, conflict and violence". A planet "dominated by China, Russia, Iran and smaller autocracies" that do not care about human rights and the regulation of law. But most importantly, the planet "of hostile interests and values not only for the United States but besides for people who love freedom around the world," Diamond warns.
Source: foreignaafaris.com
AS
