Can Liberal Democracy Survive?

Eduardo del Buey
Foto: Afp
La Jornada Maya

Miércoles 3 de octubre, 2018

In his new book [i]The People vs. Democracy[/i], Professor Yascha Mounk defines liberal democracy as “a political system that is both liberal and democratic—one that both protects individual rights and translates popular views into public policy”.

After the fall of the iron curtain, most observers expected liberal democracy to succeed as the model for government in the developed world and as an aspirational model for the developing world.

In my view, this expectation seems to have fallen by the wayside.

My question is: can liberal democracy survive in a globalized world? Can individual rights and freedoms survive in a world of governance composed of technocrats on the one hand and populists on the other, with traditional politicians losing credibility and relevance?

Let me explain.

In a liberal democracy, voters elect representatives to govern them in direct response to the mandate they have received in the election. This usually comes in the form of electoral promises presented in the winning party’s manifesto or platform. The civil service, composed of technocrats and experts, implements and oversees the political decisions taken by elected leaders. In some countries, often only after they have been replaced as they too have political affiliations. In fact, developing countries with presidential systems tend to fire everyone when new governments are elected.

This civil service scenario is workable in a nation state where all policy decisions are made by agencies of the elected government and whose impact falls within clearly defined borders and parameters.

Can this work in a globalized world where the nation state has been impacted by overreaching multilateral institutions?

In today’s world, major challenges are global in nature. Climate change, epidemics and pollution cross borders with impunity. National borders are not barriers when millions travel and spread germs, when air and water pollution affect us all, and where the rising global temperatures have an impact on life and property.

Addressing these global issues effectively requires a multilateral approach, usually by organizations whose leaders and staff are not elected directly or indirectly but who instead are appointed for their expertise. In this scenario, the role of political leaders is to exert proper guidance to ensure that the interests of voters are respected and acted upon.

Even so, once we have multilateral organizations governing us, can the liberal democracy’s primary objective of maximizing its self-interests and preserving individual rights and liberties survive? And if so, how?

The current rise of populism and reactive nationalism is due in large part to a revolt by voters who believe that their national sovereignty and democratic voices are being usurped by faceless unelected bureaucrats in New York, Geneva, Brussels, or any of the other “capitals” of multilateralism. Populist leaders argue that their sovereignty must not be subjected to the auspices of the United Nations or even a dispute resolution mechanism within trade agreements like NAFTA.

Brexiters, for example, argue that it is time for the British people themselves to retake control of the United Kingdom’s economy and borders. Marine LePen in France seeks a France free from immigrants and the overbearing presence of the European Union’s unelected bureaucracy. Hungary’s Victor Orban seeks to recreate the Christian Hungary of years past, with a Europe free from Muslims on the one hand and domineering unelected “Eurocrats” on the other.

The European Union is a prime example of unelected officials creating a vast regulatory and legal framework with little direct daily oversight by elected officials. Independent central banks are another source of frustration for many populists and their followers, angry that major economic and financial decisions that have a direct impact on citizens are in fact taken by unelected technocrats who act independently from elected governments.

The impact of mass migration is another problem that no one nation state can resolve: it calls for multilateral cooperation to a) address and resolve the causes of this phenomenon and b) resettle or repatriate the millions of refugees caused by civil conflict, ethnic oppression, or endemic poverty. In addition, rebuilding affected countries so that refugees can return home calls for international coordination and funding to reconstruct infrastructures.

And it is precisely this perceived inability by national governments and traditional political leaders to develop and express visions that can effectively deal with these phenomena that is leading many voters to lose confidence in liberal democracy and seek other alternatives. Indeed, a recent Pew poll indicates that a majority of voters in Hungary, South Korea, Spain, Poland, Japan, and other countries believe that rule by experts would be preferable to rule by politicians. A quarter of the voters in these countries believe that rule by a strong leader with weak institutional controls would be preferable. This underscores the declining appeal of liberal democracy in a world fraught with challenges that many voters do not understand and that many leaders do not know how to manage.

These leaders and movements are receiving their mandates from two areas: (1) disaffected voters, who feel that globalization has privileged the few at the expense of the many and who see a return to past glory as a way to redeem their lost status and (2) disinterested voters who mistakenly translate their disappointment into not participating in the voting process.

But a return to yesteryear is not possible.

The problems humanity faces are not easily solved. They require resources and networks that are not available to individual states. They require international cooperation.

Today’s technologies have created new information, financial and communications networks that are laying down their own governance paths independent of national governments. Can national governments reclaim these territories? Some may argue that the Chinese government has effectively tamed mass social media to suit its purposes. But will the Chinese be able to replicate the West’s technological and scientific creativity without the independent thinking that feeds it? That remains to be seen.

Yet, a recent editorial in The Economist noted that “Europe and America are in the throes of a popular rebellion against liberal elites, who are seen as self-serving and unable, or unwilling, to solve the problems of ordinary people. Elsewhere a 25-year shift towards freedom and open markets has gone into reverse, even as China shows that dictatorships can thrive.”

China’s growing influence in the developing world may well create a shift in thinking towards a Chinese model of governance, especially if Chinese investment in infrastructure and production is accompanied by increases in the standard of living in these countries. China’s success has underscored the fact that countries do not need to be liberal democracies in order to succeed economically and pull large numbers of people out of poverty. If that model delivers more than the liberal democratic one, then liberal democracies might be in for a major global challenge. And if they come free of human rights and democratic governance demands, many third world leaders will likely follow China’s lead.

Another challenge for liberal democracy is the fact that mainstream media is under attack, and in many cases, public trust is waning. Without a strong and independent media, liberal democracy suffers. It is no surprise that autocratic and populist leaders seem to always begin by attacking the media and weaken it into submission. This is not helped by the fact that many media today are run by a few mega-companies, and that the concentration of media power is not well accepted by many voters. Media moguls who appear to sell themselves to political interests (or vice versa) have created a further vacuum of trust in the media that is costing democracy big time.

So, how does liberal democracy survive and flourish?

By adapting.

Political leaders have to work harder and learn to listen to their voters, understand their concerns and fears, and then develop and communicate visions that deal with tomorrow’s challenges to engage and inspire voters. They must provide ideas that combat the politics of fear and division with simple messages that resonate with voters. Here is what this means.

They must propose common sense responses to problems.

They must put an end to identity politics and create visions that bring people together rather than underscore their differences. They must learn to govern with common sense and pragmatism, not ideology. They must govern in the interest of all, and not just the few who can afford to buy their way into positions of influence.

They must recast educational systems so that people are prepared for the twenty first century economy. Here, governments must work closely with the private sector in order to prepare the next generation for the job markets of the future. This means emphasizing the ability to learn constantly throughout one’s life as a major objective of education. Teaching students how to think critically, how to manage technology, how to develop their skills in areas that artificial intelligence cannot mimic, and how to be flexible in reinventing themselves as conditions change and new technologies come on board.

Finally, leaders must galvanize voters to actually get out and vote. A good place to start is by selecting credible candidates and by crafting inspiring messages and policies that address needs across the broad spectrum of voter interests. When Democrats in the United States complain about Trump, do they not realize that millions of Democrats stayed home on election day because the party could not produce a unifying candidate with simple and effective policies and messages? That over 50 percent of eligible voters did not vote?

Voter apathy alone is what ultimately might lead to the demise of liberal democracy. The old saying that if you don’t use it, you lose it, applies to the freedom of choice and of the vote.

And if we don’t use the vote to create positive change autocratic and populist leaders will ensure that we do, in fact, lose it.

[b][email protected][/b]