Trends

Losing faith in democracy
POPULATION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TIRED OF SLOW REFORM

WRITTEN BY Aleksander Shkolnikov

Recent public opinion data from a number of democratizing countries reveals a disturbing trend to abandon democratic reforms in favor of a return to authoritarian rule. This popular disaffection, however, stems not from a loss of faith in the principles and benefits of democracy, but from frustration at the slow pace of reform. In many cases, the democratic nature of these regimes did not extend beyond the ballot box and reforms have either been abandoned or carried out incompletely. Meanwhile, states that have undertaken full and transparent democratization are reaping economic rewards.

Asurvey recently published by the United Nations, entitled: “Report on Democracy in Latin America,” paints a somewhat disturbing picture of democracy’s future in the region. The data presented suggests many people are frustrated with democracy in Latin America because democratically elected governments are failing to meet their citizens’ economic and social needs. The alarming fact is, the report states, a majority of people would prefer an authoritarian regime to a democratic one, if a dictator could improve economic well-being. A stunning 60% of political leaders surveyed concur with this point of democratic failure by admitting that the work of political parties is not meeting expectations. An earlier Latinobarómetro survey confirms the trend, revealing that 38% of people in Latin America agree democracy fails to solve the problems of their country, while 52% said they would accept an authoritarian regime that could provide economic opportunities. It is not only Latin Americans that are frustrated with democratic systems; a number of developing countries in other parts of the world show the same popular attitudes, as citizens support regimes where leaders hold strong authority. According to USbased Freedom House, the number of electoral democracies in the world actually decreased last year, from 121 to 117,and many electoral democracies are closer to authoritarian regimes than liberal democratic ones.

STRONG-HANDED RULERS

The former Soviet republics, a majority of which are now run by leaders with immense political and economic power, illustrate this emerging element in the democracy crisis. There, electoral democracies remain in name, but actual governance is often undemocratic. In Russia, for example, President Vladimir Putin enjoys 70% popular support, while his regime is frequently referred to as authoritarian by the rest of the world. At the same time, according to Global Barometer governance indicators, only 30% of Russians are satisfied with the way their democracy works, while almost 70% reject the feasibility of dictatorship. Why is there such support for the current regime amid widespread dissatisfaction with democracy? Perhaps it is the lack of alternative candidates or Russian popular preference for democracy with strong authority – Russia’s experience with liberal democracy was painful for many because of the often chaotic nature of the Yeltsin-era in the 1990s. The latter seems to be the case, as recent moves by Putin’s administration aimed at strengthening the role of the state – such as limiting freedom of the media, abolishing elections of regional governors and imposing control over higher courts – did not encounter many popular objections.

Downtown Prague: the transition to democratic rule brought about large-scale citizen participation and vast economic opportunities

In Georgia, civil society opponents of newly elected President Mikhail Saakashvili (who won 96% of the popular vote) have criticized him for undemocratic moves, such as securing an exceptional amount of power under new constitutional amendments and suppressing the press. The recent events in Georgia illustrate a troubling phenomenon: when leaders chosen in free elections make populist promises and opt to strengthen their power in undemocratic ways once they come into office. In the absence of mechanisms that allow citizens to hold government officials accountable, such moves go unpunished.

WHO IS TO BLAME?

Frustration with democracies is changing the development agenda. Since the end of the Cold War, the emphasis on democracy promotion has yielded to headline reports of democratic consolidation. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, democratization swept across the world and the expectations of forthcoming benefits were high. As many citizens took to the streets demanding changes and participated in free elections, they envisioned stability, equal representation and economic prosperity that would come with democracy. Experts from developed countries often had similar expectations. Many expected such changes overnight. Although societies in some countries have been able to reap the benefits of market economies and democratic systems, in others the expectations have not been fulfilled. In those countries, privatization processes exacerbated unemployment, democratic reforms failed to give people a real voice in policy making, freedom of speech did not take root, access to information remained restricted and economic opportunities fell short of need. “Poverty” and “inequality” are most often cited as the reasons for citizen discontent with democratic systems. In some countries, instead of the bright economic future newly-elected democratic leaders promised, people often witnessed worsening economic conditions, increased income inequality and the capture of the economic marketplace by elites. In others, where GDP increased, the upper-middle class garnered the greatest benefits, while the poor remained poor.

Moscow: recent moves by the Putin administration aimed at strengthening the role of the state did not encounter many popular objections

But the problems go beyond poverty and inequality. Citizens in new democracies came to realize the unlikelihood of a constructive dialogue with public officials. Thus, the main fruit of democracy, participation in public policy, was unattainable. These problems within political structures were echoed in weak economic development. High levels of corruption and distrust toward political institutions lingered and economic opportunities remained scarce in many countries. As a result, increased antagonism toward democratic systems grew.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE?
Democracy does work, however, in certain countries, and transitions to democratic systems can bring about citizen participation and vast economic opportunities. If it is done right, it will work right. Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries that have joined the European Union are a living example. They have graduated from the transition process and now are in a second stage of reforms to strengthen their political institutions and economies. Those countries face little popular resentment of democratic systems. In the Czech Republic, for example, GDP per capita rose from USD 6,900 in 1993 to USD 15,700 in 2003, and in Hungary, it more than doubled – from USD 6,100 in 1990 to USD 13,900 in 2003. At the same time, poverty levels in these countries declined as sound policies, successful privatization and stable foreign investment helped build an efficient private sector. But the “miracle” of democracy is not limited to countries in Central and Eastern Europe. In Africa, for example, Botswana is a similar success story. Botswana’s democratic success has translated into strong economic performance. In the past several decades it had one of the highest growth rates in the world, as its GDP per capita, which was a mere USD 1,600 in 1990, reached a reputable USD 9,500 by 2003. In the recent World Bank report, “Doing Business in 2005,” which concentrates on removing obstacles to economic growth, Botswana was named one of the Top 20 economies in the world with the most favorable environment for doing business. But despite the economic gains, the challenge before Botswana’s policymakers today is similar to that of other countries going through the democratization process – increasing employment and decreasing poverty, thus making sure that a country’s economic growth is realized by all of its citizens, not just the upper-middle class.

LONG PROCESS
Similar to movements that question the benefits and legitimacy of globalization, anti-democracy movements today are fueled by the fact people see few benefits from democratic systems. But popular frustration with democracies is, in essence, frustration with a lack of economic opportunity. The solution, therefore, does not lie in authoritarian regimes, as some allege. Instead, the solution lies within functioning economies and democratic systems, as good governance and efficient markets help citizens realize their economic potential. Democracy is a process, and the results do not appear overnight. Instead of giving up on democracies, efforts should be channeled into strengthening them by improving the dayto-day governance between elections.

This article is an edited version of a feature story provided by the Center for Independent Private Enterprise (CIPE) Feature Service. The Washington D.C.- based center supplies in-depth articles on issues affecting transition countries’ development to political democracy and marketoriented economic systems.