In Protection of Democracy

Imagine that you, like me, are a typical product of liberal Western democracy and are invited to hold a lecture with a group of Chinese students in Beijing or Shanghai for its benefits. Ignoring the fact that, in reality, the Chinese government would never allow such a lecture, ask yourself: What would you say?

First and foremost, it would be advisable to admit that you do not speak from a moral superior position. Western civilization in the first half of the 20th century was not very civilized. Human rights were violated. Class warfare destroyed all political systems. There were violent conflicts of high degree and many ethnic cleansings. In view of this story, Westerners are not in the position to lecture on social freedoms and human values.
It is also noteworthy that the almost tenacious global march toward democracy after the fall of the Berlin Wall now seems to be going down. According to Larry Diamond of Stanford University, some countries that were democracy at the beginning of this century have changed to Various systems.

Of course, only elections don't make democracy. Take into account those cases where elections empower an ethnic majority or religious group, which then crush other minorities a result that has often been seen in the Balkans, for example.

Then there are times when a leader's election is considered somehow legitimising the subsequent manifestation of the dictatorship. This has been the case in Russia, which, since President Vladimir Putin's election victory in 2000, has become a Potemkin democracy. This year, the upcoming elections -- neither free nor fair -- will give Putin another term in the office.

In a true democracy, free and fair elections consist more widely of rule of law, fair process, an independent judiciary, an active civil society and freedom of press, confidence, rallying and associations. In fact, it's theoretically possible even though it's difficult for political systems to have all these elements without a choice. (Political scientist Samuel Finel, in his comprehensive study of various kinds of governments, discovered only a society that was leadership but not democratic: Hong Kong colonial.

Democracys depend on institutional inland, not just on outward appearance. People who make them work accept a set of standards that often do not have to be codified. The problem is when people either worse, their leaders refuse to obey democratic standards. This is what is happening today in the United States, where President Donald Trump challenges some of the basic rules, standards and principles of American democracy.

Trump threatens (as President Nixon led) to use his power to turn rule of law into a target against his opponents primarily Hillary Clinton, which he wants “behind bars”. It attacks freedom of the press, encouraging supporters to attack journalists, say posting a video parody of itself by firing a man with a CNN logo on his head. He's trying to destroy the American Control and Balance system. And he seems to give priority to advancing his family's commercial interests more than the interests of the American people.
While some parts of the American democratic political system, for example, judicial control over executive authority has proved flexible, others are breaking. But Trump is a consequence of this breach, not cause.

The real problem is that the Republican Party has become a hungry instrument of lobbyists and extremists, and both Democrats and Republicans seem to have abandoned their pledges to govern with consensus. As a result, the constitutional brakes America's founders have created to prevent the choice of a businessman as Trump has failed. As a cause of popular discontent sparked by increased inequality and seemingly self-aware elites, the political system is coming out of control.

Economic challenges, coupled with fears of migration, have created similar pressures in Europe, reflected in the growing support for right-wing populist parties in elections in Germany and France last year, as well as the rise of non-liberal <x0-democracy” in Hungary and Poland.

Opposition to such attacks on democracy will require political leaders to show courage and vision as French President Emmanuel Macron has so far done in defense of values that are fundamental to democratic governance. In the European Union, this implies that leaders should not look blind to the attack of elected governments on institutions that have preserved democracy. After all, the EU is not just a customs union, it is a union of common values. If he fails to behave properly, it will be undone.

Some of the bad years that democracies have spent does not mean that there is reason to assess dictatorship or authoritarianism. History shows that when it comes to human prosperity and well - being, societies that protect political and economic freedom are at the top. In the 1930 ' s, some admired Adolf Hitler's system and Benito Musolini's success in the flow of trains at all times. But clearly it was not worth the cost.

The same is true of China today. Yes, the country has become an economic power in recent decades. But if a system cannot survive the basic discontent of the legal challenges of television parroday, how can it be as strong as its leaders claim? And if an attack on corruption is maintained by a corrupt government, how can this be considered legitimate?

This contrasts with India, which may have some losses in the economic race in recent years, but has been standing since independence, despite different ethnic, religious and linguistic differences without having to create a communist system. This does not mean that there is no discontent or disagreement. But no matter how much the Indians argue, they are not detaining or eliminating dissidents, thanks to the security mechanisms democracy allows. No society can move indefinitely without such mechanisms. And Carl Marx, I mean, wouldn't argue with me about it.

/Project Syndicate