During the 20th and 21st centuries, democracy was imposed through the force of arms in Japan, Germany, Iraq and Afghanistan. The adoption of a democratic form of government also occurred in a number of nations in Eastern Europe and Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In South America, military dictatorships were transformed into democracies in Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, as well as several smaller nations. In Africa and Asia, democracies were born when colonialism ended and nations were granted self-rule by the Western colonial powers that had governed them, or when military dictatorships crumbled. It seemed to be a golden era for the establishment of democracy.
However, looking at the nations that adopted democracy in the twentieth century, can we say that the process has been generally successful and that self-government works? To start, we have to decide how democratic governments should relate to the citizens they govern. In the United States, the initial amendments to the Constitution guarantee freedom of religion, speech, and the press, and the rights of assembly and petition. Also included are the right to privacy and probable cause for search warrants, due process in criminal cases, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to a fair trial. Other more arcane rights are mentioned as well. But on the basis of what we have listed, is democracy working in the rest of the world?
Democracy’s failures in nations with different historical backgrounds and cultures generally occur for the same reason- the ignorance of the electorate. Voters in democracies do not exercise their franchise in an intelligent fashion. They are unwilling (or unable) to examine the attributes of candidates for office and do not delve into the important issues. Instead, their information about candidates and issues is obtained from sound bites and political advertisements, and statements from religious leaders or celebrities. This results either in dysfunctional government as is seen in most democracies, or citizens increasingly and willingly surrendering their basic rights, as leaders seize more power and become more autocratic in their control of the state’s governing apparatus.
Russia in the last quarter century can be employed as prominent example of the citizenry of a nation surrendering their rights to an autocratic leader. Vladimir Putin, previously an officer in the KGB, was a member of Boris Yeltsin’s administration, and was appointed by him as acting President in December of 1999 when Yeltsin surprisingly resigned for health reasons. Putin was then elected president by the Russian people in 2000 and 2004. Because the Russian Constitution prohibited more than two consecutive terms, he could not run again in 2008, and had one of his acolytes, Dmitri Medvedev elected instead. In a pre-arranged agreement, Medvedev then appointed Putin as Prime Minister. Subsequently, under Putin’s direction, the Constitution was changed in 2011, extending the presidential term from four to six years starting with the election of 2012. Putin then ran for president again and was returned to office for a six year term.
While the election of 2000 was relatively fair, each subsequent Russian election has come increasingly under the control of Putin and his allies, where the outcomes of the elections were predetermined. This was true not only for the presidential races but for parliamentary contests, mayoral races, and every significant electoral post, until they were all in the hands of Putin and his cabal. Putin did this not only by having the results of the elections tabulated by people who favored Putin and his allies, but by cutting off the opposition’s ability to communicate with the Russian people. Gradually, all the media has come under the control of the Putin regime, to the point where virtually all information the people receive is vetted by Putin and his confederates. The opposition has no way to reach Russian citizens to give them differing viewpoints, though technologically sophisticated Russians are able to receive news over the Internet. With Putin and his people directing the media and information to Russian citizens, it would be impossible for opposition politicians to get elected, even if Putin did not control the electoral process.
Putin now rules Russia by fiat. He decides what is appropriate for the country (such as spending $50 billion on the Sochi Olympics, or annexing Crimea) and the Parliament rubber stamps his desires. Civil rights have also been curtailed in the country. Leading opposition figures such as Alexi Navalny have had trumped up criminal charges brought against them with threats of jail time. The women of Pussy Riot and Mikhail Khordokovsky have already gone to prison for daring to oppose Putin. Putin has also placed his friends and confederates in all the power centers in Russia and has given them control of the major economic entities, making many of them immensely rich and cementing their loyalty to him.
While Putin now has the power of a dictator, it must be remembered that the Russian people are responsible for placing him in this position. Here was an officer of the KGB that they elected to lead their country. In the early days of Putin’s “reign,” he brought the Russians stability and economic growth that trickled down to the masses even though the major beneficiaries were the oligarchs who were Putin’s friends.
What did the Russian people surrender in electing Putin? Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. Freedom of assembly. Due process in criminal cases. A fair and just judicial system and the rule of law. This is Russia now, a democracy transformed into an autocracy by the votes of its citizens. Unfortunately, to a lesser or greater degree, many democratic nations have followed the same path. Democracy cannot function without an informed and interested electorate willing to spend time to educate themselves about candidates and issues before going to the polls.
Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com
Political junkie, Vietnam vet, neurologist- three books on aging and dementia. Book on health care reform in 2009- Shock Therapy for the American Health Care System. Book on the need for a centrist third party- Resurrecting Democracy- A Citizen’s Call for a Centrist Third Party published in 2011. Aging Wisely, published in August 2014 by Rowman and Littlefield. Latest book- The Uninformed Voter published May 2020