Illiberal Democracy

Eduardo del Buey
Foto: Ap
La Jornada Maya

Martes 17 de abril, 2018

In Global Risks Insight’s edition of 2016, Jason Dozier notes that “The number of illiberal democracies is increasing around the world; however, few of them have evolved into liberal democracies. On the contrary, most of them are strengthening illiberal democracy by creating forms of government that mix substantial degrees of populist democracy with strong-man leadership”.

During the first half of 2018, Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was reelected with 97 percent of the vote against a single opposition candidate who in fact supports him.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin won reelection with 77 percent of the vote against hand-picked opponents guaranteed to lose the election while Hungary’s Viktor Orban won reelection with 133 seats in a parliament of 199 seats against a highly divided opposition – giving his illiberal party a strong enough majority to change the constitution.

To this end, the Guardian reported on April 11, 2018, that “Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orban, has promised to push through a controversial piece of legislation targeting civil society, claiming his victory in parliamentary elections had provided him with what could be the strongest political mandate in recent Hungarian history”. Orban has long railed against international advocates for human rights and democracy and seeks legislation limiting their activities and criminalizing their receiving foreign funding.

In Bolivia, President Evo Morales submitted his request that constitutional term limits be lifted to allow him to run for reelection. A majority of Bolivians voted against this move in a recent referendum, yet Morales is now challenging the results and the constitution itself, claiming that term limits violate his “human rights”. Bolivia’s supreme court, which Morales has packed with his political allies, has voted in favor of his running again in 2019.

In Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro is running in next month’s presidential election against an opposition whose principal leaders have been declared unable to run for political reasons by way of a biased electoral commission. Again, a highly divided opposition will allow Maduro to win a new term and continue reducing even further whatever democratic space is still available in that country.

These are “democracies” because they allow voting to take place. They are “illiberal” because the elections themselves are not free and fair, but, rather, are rigged in favor of an incumbent leader or party.

Who is to blame for the rise of illiberal democracy?

The list is long.

First of all, democratic leaders who have failed to address the concerns of the average voter, allowing populist illiberals to dominate the political conversation, play to the voters’ fears, and win elections.

Secondly, opposition democratic parties appear unable or unwilling to unite to fight undemocratic candidates whose politics of hatred and division appeal to the baser instincts of many voters.

Thirdly, a cynical electorate that prefers to abstain from voting – depriving democratic candidates of crucial votes while allowing undemocratic leaders to win office through the votes of their committed supporters. The main reason undemocratic candidates appeal to their voters is because they tell voters what voters want to hear rather than what may at times be the hard truth – and people are ready to reward these candidates without checking the veracity of their promises or views.

Fourthly, social media, which is not regulated for fact checking, credibility for sources or news content thereby leading to misleading perceptions.

These undemocratic candidates connect, using the fears we all share, legitimizing our hidden prejudices, and offering facile solutions to our problems.

“Enemies” are identified and demonized and the politics of fear and division are central to the debate.

Free and independent media are first attacked and vilified, and then shut down, allowing only sycophantic media to “inform” the public.

Is illiberal democracy a step towards the future or a move towards the past?

That is the fundamental question of our time.

Can liberal democracy recover, or is it doomed to be relegated to the dustbin of history?

There is a way ahead.

Truly democratic leaders must seize the conversation away from populists and develop policies and programs that both appeal to a frustrated public and underpin support for the institutions of democracy while motivating apathetic voters unaware of the danger of their apathy.

They must foster a sense of hope for the future and show how this hope can be translated into concrete policies and programs that can address the concerns of currently apathetic voters.

Investing in voter education could go a long way towards creating an informed electorate interested in participating in the electoral process – and in giving voters a vested interest in the outcome of elections.

Political leaders must clean their own houses of the perceptions of corruption that appear to have seeped into all major political systems, develop forward looking messages, and nurture future leaders capable of connecting with a disenchanted and cynical public.

Finally, they must unite to fight the demagogue rather than allow the populist autocrat to win over a perennially divided opposition. They must get people to see what is happening and to get out and make themselves heard while they can and of course to vote.

They must find messages and strategies that connect with voters and beat populists at their own game.

Is this possible?

I believe it is.

The media must fight for the right to tell the truth and must provide the political space for truly democratic leaders to argue their case. Legislation against the propagation of fake news by established news agencies must be passed, and sanctions against those who engage in this practice must be harsh. Media accountability is essential for confidence in media to be enhanced, and so that politics are played on a level playing field.

Social media must also be taken to task for facilitating the propagation of lies or innuendo. A start has been made by taking Facebook to task. Further progress is essential in order to provide voters with accurate and truthful information.

The entertainment industry must also do more to balance its current emphasis on violence, crime, and corruption and portray political leaders and institutions in a more positive light – creating confidence among young voters currently turned off by politics in general and who stay away in droves from polling stations on elections day.

Truly democratic leaders must master the art of mass communications, find strong messages, and use media effectively to transform their ideas into votes and perceptions into reality.

Illiberal leaders have found ways to connect with the passions of a frustrated electorate – to touch their souls and create a sense of identity and belonging.

Truly democratic leaders must learn to do the same in order to prevail.

[b][email protected][/b]