2009 was a bad year for democracy

Freedom House today released its annual flagship publication, Freedom in the World. The results were discouraging:

In a year of intensified repression against human rights defenders and democratic activists by many of the world’s most powerful authoritarian regimes, Freedom House found a continued erosion of freedom worldwide, with setbacks in Latin America, Africa, the former Soviet Union, and the Middle East. For the fourth consecutive year, declines have trumped gains. This represents the longest continuous period of deterioration in the nearly 40-year history of Freedom in the World, Freedom House’s annual assessment of the state of political rights and civil liberties in every country in the world.

Democratic setbacks occurred  for a number of different reasons, such as authoritarian upgrading, coups, and threats from non-state actors, such as criminal organizations and terrorist groups. However, even if the setbacks to democracy have no common theme, they do show one lesson. The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial on the report sums it up nicely:

The recent reversals coincide, however, with America’s own waning interest in democracy promotion. This didn’t start with the Obama ascendancy. Chastened by the 2006 midterm election debacle and sinking public support for his Mideast policies, President Bush took rhetorical and practical emphasis off his own flagship foreign-policy agenda.

The current Administration has changed the focus entirely. In its dealings with Russia and China, strategic issues trump any talk of democracy or human rights, which earlier this year in Beijing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton notably called a distraction to bilateral relations. Ditto in Iran.

If in the days of Jack Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, we worked to fashion the world into a better place guided by the belief that the urge to live in freedom is universal, today we act as if we are resigned to taking the world as it is. We used to nudge countries toward liberal democracy. Now we assume the price of nudging is too high.

Meanwhile, the enemies of democracy have set out to undo the gains of the post-Berlin Wall era, and many are succeeding.

Russia and the west

Lilia Shevtsova is not happy about US and Western European policy towards Russia:

A consensus seems to be growing among Western policymakers and intellectuals that Russia is not ready for liberalism and that there are even certain advantages to dealing with the illiberal political order built by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. This may be why Western policy toward Russia has only served to shore up the Russian powers that are pursuing anti-Western interests…

So what would a more principled Russia policy entail? Western leaders must keep liberal and democratic principles in mind while dealing with the Russian elite. They must be wary of the latest fairy tales about “modernization,” avoid naively spreading the Kremlin’s ideas…

Democracy is Russia is a very dim prospect. In a Gallup public opinion poll in February 2009, only 18% of respondents thought that democracy was good for Russia, while close to 70% preferred some sort of dictatorship. This not surprising as Russia’s only experience with democracy was in the 1990s, during a time of deep economic crisis and embarrassing leadership of Boris Yeltsin, while growth exploded and the country regained status as a major power under Putin‘s return to dictatorship. Nevertheless, the regime does not tolerate internal dissent and its discouraging to see democratic leaders fail to highlight this point.

Dictators and Demonstrators Symposium – December 10th

Dictators and Demonstrators:

Sharing Strategies on Repression and Reform

A Graduate Student and Practitioner Symposium

Presented By

The Center for Democracy and Civil Society at Georgetown University

In Cooperation With

Freedom House & the Forum for the Study of Democracy

December 10th, 2009

10:00 AM – 1:00 PM

Council on Foreign Relations

1777 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006

From Rangoon to Tehran, demonstrators continually adopt new strategies and technologies in their struggles against oppressive regimes. However, demonstrators are not the only ones adapting. In an effort to preempt demonstrators, authoritarians manage access to technologies, cooperate in regional organizations, and learn from each other. Contending dictators and demonstrators are aware of this competitive learning, but we know little about which side is more adaptable and under what conditions.

Demonstrators: 10:00a.m. – 11:20 a.m.

Commentator: Thomas O. Melia, Deputy Executive Director, Freedom House

Gabrielle Bardall, International Foundation for Electoral Systems

Kilic Kanat, Department of Political Science, Syracuse University

Laura Mottaz, Center for International Media Assistance, National Endowment for Democracy

J. Hunter Price, Department of Political Science, Trinity University

Dictators: 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Commentator: Daniel Brumberg, Associate Professor of Political Science at Georgetown University and Acting Director of the Muslim World Initiative at the US Institute for Peace.

Lauren Albright, Department of Political Science, Temple University

Sheena Chestnut, Department of Political Science, Harvard University

Jeanne Elone, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Brandon Yonder, National Endowment for Democracy

Refreshments will be served

RSVP by December 8 to cdacsconference@gmail.com

Overdoing diplomacy

Yeah, what he said.

United Russia looks East

The “China model” has garnered attention as an alternative for liberal development, but comparisons are largely drawn on the experiences of economic liberalization taking place under one-party dictatorships in Southeast Asia. Outside these regional comparisons, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seemed to have little applicability to political organization in the rest of the world. Now, according to this New York Times piece, Putin’s United Russia party believes the CCP deserving of study. The article describes a special meeting held earlier this month that featured senior Communist Party officials describing their ruling methodology and quotes from various United Russia leaders on the value and success of the CCP template.

China itself has a similar history of sending its officials abroad to learn techniques of governance they believed suitable for China’s future. Since the 1980s the CCP has demonstrated interest in the People’s Action Party (PAP) in Singapore. David Shambaugh’s book, China’s Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation, reveals that the CCP values the PAP model for “guided democracy” in which the PAP sustains itself through successful policies and co-optation of the opposition”.

Each of these cases is evidence of oft assumed authoritarian cooperation, but what the implications of this learning between authoritarians are for democracy advocates and practitioners is unclear. The ability of democracy assistance or democracy/reform advocates to exert any kind of pressure on authoritarian regimes is minimal. However, a regime’s selection and analysis of case studies is perhaps indicative of direction. In China, corruption could potentially undermine the ability of the CCP to claim itself an efficient manager and capable steward of economic expansion. Singapore is the logical choice for the CCP to study given its economic success and the PAP’s ability to retain control of the state during and after economic modernization. Shambaugh believes the interest of the CCP in semi-authoritarian regimes is one example of the CCP undergoing renovation in order to retain power. If similar direction can be assumed from United Russia’s choice of China as a model then the implications are less positive. That direction might best be summed up by Sergei Mitrokhin, leader of the liberal pro-Western Yabloko party, who is quoted in the NY Times article as saying “the China meeting demonstrated that United Russia wants to establish a single-party dictatorship in Russia, for all time”.