What is a liberal democracy? It is, as we understand, a government run by elected representatives of people guided by a set of ideologies based on rights of people, rule of law, and balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judiciary.
There are some constitutional differences among democratically elected governments. Some are based on the British model called the Westminster parliamentary type where a government is run by the leader of the majority party in the parliament, and the others are based on a presidential system as in the United States where the government is run by an elected president (in the case of the US indirectly via an electoral college system).
But the key ingredients in all these democracies are constitutional guarantees of civic rights which include rights of citizens to free speech, individual liberty, rule of law, and the right to choose their representatives.
The institutions set up by the constitution such as the legislative body, the executive office, and the judiciary ensure that these rights are never infringed upon. Political parties that contest in the election assure their constituents of these rights.
Which is why people change their representatives every election cycle because they know that their rights will not change with every change in government.
A gradual erosion
Yet, why is there an ominous cloud over democracies in the world?
Why is there a gradual erosion in democracies in many places of the world?
Is it because democracies are failing to deliver to common people what they expect from their government?
Or is it because liberal democracy as we understand it is being manipulated in some places to become a tool of some authoritarians?
Winston Churchill famously remarked: “Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those others that have been.”
And indeed, it has been the only form of government that most nations aspire to have despite its flaws and inherent weaknesses.
The flaws are far outweighed by the benefits a democracy brings to the people. Democracies have more participation of people in governance than non-democracies, leading to better funding for public services, which improves welfare of the poor.
Yet, the empirical evidence notwithstanding we have been witnessing a wave of events worldwide that portend a likelihood of erosion of liberal democracy in the future.
A rise in authoritarianism
The disturbing events include the emergence of authoritarianism in countries that once had strong presence of democratic rights, freedom of speech, and unfettered suffrage. These are often preceded by the advent of populist leaders who promote isolationism, extreme nationalism, sectarianism, and anti-globalism.
They are leading their people to a vortex of extremism which clouds their perspective of the world, leading them to false beliefs and wrong ideals.
These leaders are asking their followers to put blind faith in them and their words, and many are falling in their trap.
In doing so, these leaders are casting doubts in traditional democratic institutions, in multi-party democracies, and in the ability of liberal democracy to serve people.
In other words, the motive of these leaders is to pry away people from multi-party elections where a plurality of political parties participates in elections in a fair and equitable manner.
They want to demonstrate to people that they (the leader in power) alone can offer panacea for all that ails the people. Hence, they embark upon a strategy that emphasizes a single party or a single leader who can lead the country -- and work to achieve that strategy.
Creating an enemy
Nothing works better in politics than importing or creating an image of an enemy that can be shown to people as a singular cause of their woe or misfortune.
This works very well in times of economic distress or misfortune. This imaginary foe will also serve well when a leader has the ambition to perpetuate his or her power.
The quick disappearance of democratic ideals in the Arab countries after the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings more than a decade ago can be attributed to this partly.
As internal squabble for power among the loose coalition of political parties in Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria collapsed, the traditional institutions of army and other powerful entities reemerged and regained their control, pointing to the hypothetical enemies of the country as threats to national security.
In other democracies in Asia and Latin America, failure of some democratically-elected leaders to attend to rising corruption and failing economies led to the emergence of leaders who promised quick riddance from the economic ills -- and people returned them to power.
This trend is supported by a 2004 UNDP survey of recently turned democracies from autocracy where a majority of people stated that they preferred the certainty of an autocratic government to help people to the democratically-elected governments as they did not deliver on their promises.
A worrying trend
The most recent example is the Philippines where the person elected as president is a son of the infamous dictator Marcos.
In Hungary, Victor Oban has succeeded in his election as president by pandering to the fear of his countrymen of “invasion” of their country by immigrants.
And we all know how Turkey is turning into an illiberal democracy with its president harping on the threat to Turkey's integrity from its internal enemies.
In the United States we witnessed in this decade the rise of a demagogue who led his campaign on xenophobia and used people's frustration with the economy to create a new paradigm of racist politics that people now have to contend with.
Do these emerging trends portend a possible demise of liberal democracy? Are people willing to embrace authoritarian politics as an alternative to economic development?
Not yet. Circumstances that allow rise of extremism in nationalism or anti-globalism do not necessarily translate into recurrences of these sentiments and denial of democratic values in all countries.
Countries that have long traditions of democratic institutions and practices don't bend under periodic pressures that lead to the emergence of such leadership.
With the passage of time, and forbearance of people, these traumatic events also pass. But people need to guard themselves from falling prey to such predatory leaders and prevent them from taking control of their countries.
Nipping early signs in the bud
The passage from liberal democracy to illiberalism and authoritarianism can happen if people do not detect the signs early and nip them in the bud.
These signs include efforts to stifle civic rights, politicization of public institutions and public services, and disregard to rule of law.
Authoritarianism does not necessarily mean official transition of a democratic country to an autocracy by a change in the constitution. It can happen slowly and surreptitiously by slow appropriation of state machinery and institutions by a single political party, and suppression of other political opposition.
This can happen when people do not detect these signs and oppose them in time.
We are still not in a stage to sing the dirge of democracy. What is happening in some places of the world should give us enough warning to be ready to stop these from happening in our part of the world.
In the words of the American political activist Abbie Hoffman: “Democracy is not something you believe in or a place to hang your hat, but it's something you do. You participate. If you stop doing it, democracy crumbles.”
We can fight disbelievers in democracy only with more democracy.
Ziauddin Choudhury has worked in the higher civil service of Bangladesh early in his career, and later for the World Bank in the US.
