The Paradox of Democratic Divergence
Democracy is the provision of supreme political power to the people. In such a leadership regime, citizens have the freedom to choose leaders. Democratic nations recognize the equal rights of their people and avoid repression from political elites. The power of a democratic government rests solely on individual votes. For a political leader to win in an election, one must have 51% or more votes from the people. Although democracies seem like the ideal leadership styles with liberal ideologies, they face constant opposition. Opponents of democracy create coalitions against the leadership style mostly because they oppose to democratic policies and reforms. Democratic divergent is, therefore, a paradox that tries to explain democracy and the oppositions that surround this type of rule. This paper extensively covers the puzzle of democratic divergence, and its causes, as well as transitions notable in democratic nations over time.
All democracies, stable and unstable, have both opponents and supporters. According to the January 27th class notes, a 30 to 51% of opponents to democracy may radically destabilize democratic rule (np). In most cases, Republican opponents mobilize and create incentives to destabilize democratic rule, therefore embracing authoritarian political order. An opposition may arise from angry citizens who rally against presidents or rulers that refuse to adhere to constitutional decrees in the number of terms to serve. Moreover, opponents to democracy may come from elites who want to retain their capitalist power. Such an opposition works to destabilize a democracy because people may fear to lose their domain to lower-class voters.
Democratic Minimization
A thriving democracy contains strict policies that all political parties abide by. One of these policies is altering elites that get to serve as president or supreme leaders. Rotation elections conducted after short terms of presidency increase competitiveness among potential leaders, hence increasing the chance for a fair and stable democracy. Furthermore, allowing a regime of long-term leaders breeds a sense of entitlement and misuse of power among these elites. Secondly, using the electoral mechanism in choosing leaders places power in votes. The majorities of voters who advocate for democracy tend to come from low income or marginalized states. Consequently, these voters ultimately become the policymakers of a nation (January 27th Class Notes). Democracies that give power to the majority tend to survive more.
Moreover, as per the rule of inclusion used in democracies, all adults in a country should have the freedom to vote. However, there are exceptional circumstances under which governments may deny one the opportunity to vote. For example, a person who simply lives in a democratic state but does not contain citizenship in that country should not participate in electoral activities. Apart from such minor issues, all citizens must have access to polling stations. Regardless of these rules, it is common to find ‘democratic’ political leaders who force locals not to vote or completely avoid the constitutional policies in democracy.
Paths to Democracy
Incremental democracy exists where voting rights are introduced gradually to the people. Such a democracy has a significant likelihood to succeed because it gives the nation time to adapt to the new political regimes. A discontinuous path to democracy, however, entails a linkage to a program of radical redistribution. Leaders force the concept of democracy into the lives of their citizens, thus causing social survival threats (February 3rd Class Notes, np).
Transition to Democracy
For a change in any aspect of society to occur, there must be sufficient demand for it. Placing democratization in the state policy agenda requires more than half of the nation to concur with the idea of change. Although democracy is a utopic society full of potentially positive outcomes, it often becomes unstable over time due to opposition by tyrants and elites. However, the higher the demand for democracy, the higher the benefits obtained through linkage (February 3rd Class Notes, np).
Democracy is a paradox mainly because the most significant the linkage it causes, the greater the survival threat to the status quo. Middleclass citizens would suffer due to factors such as tax regulations to suit the needs of lower economic classes. Such threats to the status quo generate incentives for communists and anti-democratic left coalitions to create uprisings in to protect their political beliefs. Excessive oppositions would inadvertently lead to overthrowing leaders or the destruction of the entire democracy (February 3rd Class Notes, np). The creation of coalitions against democracies leads to long periods of violence and destabilization.
The Problem of Democratic Stability
Democratic mobilization or stability requires a significant linkage between the demand for democracy and concrete interests that can benefit from state democratization (January 27th Class Notes, np). In many democracies, the winning political parties attain their power from the votes of minority groups, lower-class citizens, and people living in rural areas. When people from lower classes vote for political leaders, it is standard for these leaders to push for generous policies. For instance, poor people from rural areas are easily swayed to vote for leaders who offer them financial sustenance or create hope for a better future. Therefore, these leaders will feel obliged to fight for their rights more than those of the elites and people living in urban centers.
Such a linkage effect would anger and pose threats to key groups who see democracy as a demerit to social survival (January 27th Class Notes, np). The influential people in society would fight back, in turn, causing social and political polarization in a quest to defend their positions. Significant threats to people in power brought about by democracy include the implementation of property rights. In authoritarian governments, powerful people in society overlook the property rights of poor and illiterate, partaking in activities such as land grabbing and making a profit from these properties. A democracy educates lower-class citizens on their rights, thus placing them at equal standing with elites.
For a democracy to succeed, leaders need to understand their opposition and find ways to tame them. Radical opposition parties and coalitions pose immense threats to democracies, especially if these groups have more than 30% demographic significance in the country. In some democracies, leaders buy out opposition coalitions to prevent the decline of democratic power.
Causes of Democratic Divergence
Democratic divergence is a Rubik’s cube with many sides to it. People oppose this leadership style due to numerous differing factors. Elites, for instance, fight fervently against democracies to retain their social and economic power. In many democratic states, especially in Africa, elites advocate for an authoritarian rule to gain control of the state and take advantage of the poor (Kurlantzick, 22). Other groups fight against democracies because they are defective and toxic to the country. According to research conducted by Kurlantzick, out of 128 democratic nations that were enrolled for a study, 53 were defective (9). For instance, a country like Kenya exhibited great democratic potential after the rule of Daniel Arap Moi, a ruthless dictator. However, after a decade of democracy, the nation faces qualitative erosion in the leadership style. At their next president’s, Kibaki’s, inauguration, the man stated: “The era of anything goes is now gone forever: Government will no longer be run on the whims of individuals.”( Kurlantzick, 53). Nonetheless, the nation currently faces ethnic clashes and repressive governments that illegally use their power and resources to destroy oppositions.
Similar to Kenya, Russia also faces a defective democracy and forms of Soviet repression. Vladimir Putin became the country’s president in 2000. His term lasted for eight years, after which his close confidant, Dmitry Medvedev, took power. Although Medvedev declared that the criminal justice system in Russia needed amending, he was secretly working with Putin to place him back in control in the next term. Medvedev’s ‘democratic’ reforms were all but a coup to pave the way for the rule of the authoritarian Putin. Vladimir Putin is the current president of the Soviet state, even though the constitution does not allow presidents to serve for more than two terms. Such instances are recurrent in numerous democratic states where political elites completely disregard the policies in democracy. Russia and Kenya are among the 16 nations in the 53 defective democracies that proved to be highly eroded (Kurlantzick, 9). Many of these highly eroded democratic nations are located in Africa, showing the prevalence of political instability in the continent. These nations include Tanzania, a country that was once the epitome of socialism.
Democratic deterioration may also arise from pressures after joining certain groups. Kurlantzick also states that countries like Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary were models of successful democracies before joining the European Union (EU)(9). For different reasons, democratic rule gradually diverged and created political polarization in these countries. Theories would argue that influential behaviors from authoritarian EU states brought about the reduction in democracies. While in the EU, a significant number of leaders gain populist ideologies that differ substantially from democratic policies. Leaders who acquire a hunger for authoritarian rule often control the views of their nation’s citizens, thus increasing country-wide distaste for democracies.
Countries like Hungary show a vast difference in their government in the decade after joining the EU. Its government, which previously encouraged freedom of speech, significantly worsened into Soviet suppression (Kurlantzick, 9). It formed alliances against the media and implemented new laws that completely infringed media rights.
Thailand
Thailand is an essential example depicting democratic decline for various reasons. In 2010, redshirt demonstrators flocked the streets of Bangkok, rallying against their current government. Redshirts symbolized believers of democracy, while yellow shirts in the nation were far more into conservatism and authoritarian rule. According to Kurlantzick, many pro-democratic citizens rally against far-right democratic leaders due to the infringement of human rights (7). Redshirts, for instance, complained that their leaders, under the presidency of Thaksin, were unsympathetic and, hence demanded for new elections. The Bangkok demonstration which started peacefully rapidly became violent, leading to excessive bloodshed and destabilization. The turn of events was primarily caused by angry red shirts, who shot at security personnel. Authorities then retaliated by shooting aimlessly at the protestors, wreaking havoc. Although these red shirts camped out in protest for weeks, the government furiously declined to listen to their appeals. Conversely, the Thailand government opted to use force in silencing the protestors. Armed soldiers surrounded these red shirts, and shot at anyone, especially those in communication with journalists from other nations.
Although the Redshirts fought back, military personnel and local police outmatched them. The demonstration ended with numerous loses, and no wins to the democrats. Despite the fact that Thaksin identified himself as a democrat, he used his power for authoritarian rule. The leader’s most relevant reform was to reduce the number of elected seats in the Thailand parliament. Such a move would reduce the rights of rural and marginalized citizens, who had religiously backed him in his ascent to power.
Moreover, the president unlawfully silenced the media and murdered his most significant political opponents. He used a conspiracy, asserting that it was a fight against drugs to kill innocent red shirts. Thaksin’s leadership methods moved from relatively democratic to dictatorship and became similar to renowned rulers such as Uganda’s Idi Amin. Due to his dictatorial rule, many red shirts relented. However, after two terms of service and renewed energy from the red shirts, Thaksin’s government ended. Regardless of these positive changes in Thailand, the country still faced internal chaos and political instability.
Thailand can be used to demonstrate how democratic divergence leads to violence and nationwide a breakdown. Also, the country illustrated that the most powerful side always wins regardless of whether the majority of its citizens are in the opposition. Thaksin used military rule to reduce resistance. Stable democracies require the creation of a middle ground between supporters and the opposition (February 3rd Class Notes, np). Tyrannical leaders like Thaksin, however, disregard the need for peace.
Additionally, eroded democracies cause constitutional civil wars and anti-democratic elections. Also, such protests place a standstill on policing making, destroys economic activities, and scares investors and tourists. Such states potentially settle on an authoritarian rule to reduce conflict.
Reasons for Pro Authoritarian Rule
In some states, both the elite and marginalized push for the abolition of democracies since their leaders lack the ability to develop practical solutions to the continuous prevalence in global and local crisis. Kurlantzick states that many anti-democrats arise from the middle economic class. These people “fear that democracy would produce chaos, corruption, and weak growth” (Kurlantzick, 32). Moreover, these people push against democracy because it constantly allows the election of populists and tyrants who disregard the constitution and democratic policies.
The current Philippines experience a myriad of political and economic problems. According to Kurlantzick, the nation’s annual growth ranges from 3 to 4% (78). Such a growth rate is insufficient for the creation of job opportunities for the rapidly-growing population. Over two decades ago, the middle-class citizens in the Philippines had marched to remove a tyrant, Ferdinand Marcos from power. After succeeding and democratically electing Corazon Aquino to power, there was a rampant boom in the country’s economy. Democracy created liberal markets and equal production rights, providing the middle class with financial stability. Fidel Ramos succeeded Aquino’s rule and increasingly boosted then nation in political, economic, and social arenas. The end of Ramos’ rule, however, brought numerous demerits to the middle class and poor societies. A few powerful elites controlled the entire economy, leading their economic lessers into further poverty. The streets of major cities such as Manila became the hotspot for insecurity as this turn of events spiked the presence of gangs and thieves trying to make ends meet. Corruption rates among politicians and police officers increased, and factors like dishonest taxing and vote-rigging became a norm. The middle-class citizens significantly suffered, since they could not afford secure estates or police protection.
The middle-class, therefore, blamed democracy for the disorderly and corrupt economy in the country. Many Filipinos migrated to their nations to find jobs, and the country’s economy stagnated to an alarming fashion. Romero Jose, a former Filipino diplomat, stated that “we have too much democracy here,” alluding to all the negative impacts of democracy the country was facing (Kurlantzick, 80). The middle-class Filipinos opted to take to the streets in protest rather than using democratic means to better their conditions. The majority of the citizens had utterly lost trust in democracy, arguing that democratic leaders only created illusions of equality but supported the elites. For nations like the Philippines to Succeed in fixing their conditions, radical redistribution of resources is necessary.
The thought of democracy creates hope for liberalization and peace in society. However, electing political leaders who do not adhere to democratic rules or those that serve as pawns for the elite, leads to nationwide disruptions. Democratic divergence has many causes and ultimately leads to disillusionment and chaos. Therefore, all nations that opt for democracy need to have stringent policies to reduce cases of corruption, infringement, and violence. Moreover, successful democratic alignment highly depends on gradual and incremental paths of implementation.
Works Cited
February 3rd . Polit120 Class Notes. 2020
January 27th. Polit12o Class Notes. 2020
Kurlantzick, Joshua. Democracy in retreat: The revolt of the middle class and the worldwide decline of representative government. Connecticut: Yale University Press