US Democracy is Failing. What other Failed Democracies Can Tell Us About Our Potential Future, and How to Avoid It
Democracies around the world are failing. While last century was one of ending autocracy, capped off by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, this century’s political winds are undoing that progress. While some democratic movements have been successful, such as in Tunisia, the reality is that more countries have gotten worse than better. Even the United States, which we like to view as the beacon of democratic values, has been listed as a backsliding democracy for the first time, in light of the fallout of the 2020 Presidential Election. While the situation is urgent, it is not inevitable; by investigating why democracies abroad failed, we can learn about the causes and how they manifest, in order to fight back against this trend. It is through vigilance rather than ignorance that we can preserve our democracy.
Russia & Turkey: How Cultures of Fear Serve to Cement Authoritarianism
- Russia
- Poisonings and Assassinations of Opposition figures domestically and abroad
- Alexei Navalny
- Brutal crackdowns on protests (Ukraine examples)
- Takeover of state media
- Poisonings and Assassinations of Opposition figures domestically and abroad
- Turkey
- Abused a bogus investigation in 2007 to lock up academics, journalists, and military officers
- Political moment allowed the AKP to cement its grip on power by passing 26 constitutional amendments
- Military coup in 2016 gave Erdogan more exigence for arresting civilian opposition and others
- Political moment allowed for Erdogan to increase the power of the judiciary even more
- Abused a bogus investigation in 2007 to lock up academics, journalists, and military officers
- US Parallels
- Responses to BLM protests, both physical and in rhetoric
- Threats to journalism (Trump’s we’ll open up the libel laws and other)
- How to stop
- Strengthen first amendment protections for journalism and protest
- More accountability for executives at all levels
Example excerpt from this section (Will be modified later to reflect structure, although the information will be included):
Over time, Putin has become a lot more bold in his authoritarianism. While early on, he simply controlled the press and befriended oligarchs, he has now moved on to political suppression. In 2017, Boris Nemtsov was found shot dead outside the Kremlin. The government claimed it was a Chechen rebel (a very popular scapegoat), but due to Nemtsov’s opposition to Putin and attempts to expose Russian military machinations in Ukraine, I would suppose that Putin was at least indirectly responsible. In 2013, Alexei Navalny, a popular opposition figure, was jailed on phony embezzlement charges, barring him from running for office. Bolder still, Putin has begun cracking down on protests against his regime. Media is tightly controlled, and protesters are often detained. (Source)
In 2007, Turkish authorities uncovered weapons which were allegedly part of a plot to overthrow the government. They conducted incredibly “thorough” investigations, mostly relying on the testimony of military officers with known Islamist affiliations. All in all, nearly 300 people were convicted in 2013. Academics, journalists, military officers, everyone. All of the convictions were overturned in 2016, but the damage was already done. In the political moment produced by the trials, the AKP passed 26 amendments to the constitution, which both strengthened democracy to meet EU standards and also expanded executive power over the judiciary. A large amount of discontent brewed over these policies and extreme reactions to protests, which caused the AKP to fall short of a majority in parliament in 2015. However, because of Turkey’s coalition system, no government was able to form, since no parties which could unify into a majority banded together. This triggered a snap election in which the AKP regained their power and won easily.
At this point, Turkey is pretty bad: questionably cracking down on government officials, undoing societal norms for practically no reason, etc. But this was just the beginning. In 2016, there was a failed military coup, which allowed for Erdogan to seize the moment and strengthen his own political hand. He immediately blamed the opposition, and used this public blame as an excuse to arrest tens of thousands and remove over 100,000 people from their job for alleged connections to the coup. Riding this wave, in 2017, voters narrowly approved another referendum yet again increasing the powers of the presidency (which is the position that Erdogan holds). It removed the coalition system and the position of Prime Minister, making the Presidency the main executive (which was convenient for Erdogan, because he was barred from holding the position of Prime Minister). In 2018, early elections were called, and, yet again, the AKP’s alliance won an outright majority and allowed Erdogan to further consolidate his control over the government.
Tunisia: A Tragedy of Poor Planning
- Tunisia
- Very new democracy
- Became a democracy in 2014 following the Jasmine Revolution
- Neglected to set up a Supreme Court to resolve constitutional disputes
- This allowed President Saied to disband parliament and consolidate executive control
- Very new democracy
- US Parallels
- Growing executive power post 9/11
- How to stop
- Be vigilant for power grabs, and pass laws limiting executive power and strengthening the power of other branches
Example excerpt from this section:
Despite setting up an elections system for their legislature and executive branches, the Tunisian government never set up a Supreme Court to enforce the constitution. This was a loophole waiting to be exploited. In July 2021, President Saied moved to disband parliament and take control of the government. Using the popular cover of a stagnating economy and proclaiming that he could fix it, and by invoking a questionably applicable article of the Tunisian Constitution, he was able to take control relatively easily. (Source)
What can we learn from this tragedy? Well, discarding the populace’s prior experience with authoritarian status quo, the two main factors contributing to these events were economics and poorly constructed institutions. Similarly to in Poland and Russia, Saied was able to bend the rules to his will, exploiting the very democratic system to erode it from the inside. He was able to do this with few consequences because people are driven by their needs first. If an economy/economic system doesn’t work for them, they will push for change, just as in Turkey’s case. While the location has changed, the through lines are evident.
Hungary & Poland: How to Rig a Judiciary
- Hungary
- Disproportionate representation lead to a 50% party becoming a supermajority
- Removed checks on the power of the legislature and courts, passed censorship, limited the mandate of the judiciary
- Consolidated the press
- Reformed the supreme court to rig it in Orban’s favor
- Poland
- Similar rise to Poland
- Disciplinary mechanism for judges
- Punishable action includes criticizing the government
- US Parallels
- Conflation of judiciary and ruling party
- Confirmation of Garland, Gorsuch, and Barrett
- Conflation of judiciary and ruling party
- How to stop
- Reform the process of selecting and confirming justices
- Maybe have the vice president bring it to the floor?
- Reform the process of selecting and confirming justices
Example excerpt from this section:
Hungary
Hungary’s shift to authoritarianism didn’t start in 2020. It started in 2010, when Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s party, Fidesz, were swept into power, with a supermajority of seats in parliament. Interestingly, they only won about 50% of the vote, but fractured voting blocs allowed them to be way overrepresented. They used their power to force through changes to the constitution and legal system to allow them to control the whole government. The biggest/most important changes that they made were removing checks on executive power by the legislature and courts, passing censorship laws and shutting down the free press, and limiting the mandate of the courts.
We’re going to glaze over executive power grabs, because they are significantly less important than the erosion of other checks here. Suppression of freedom of speech is one of the most dangerous lurches a country can take towards authoritarianism. If all the information about a government’s misdeeds are prevented from ever reaching the ears of the public, they can’t be voted out. And this is exactly what Orban has been doing. In 2016, an Orban ally became a partial owner of a leading opposition newspaper, and soon after, the newspaper (Nepszabadsag) was shut down. He consolidated his grip over the media further in 2018, with allies acquiring over 500 independent media outlets, shutting them down or converting them into propaganda outlets. Now, the reporting of almost all journalism in the country goes through the government’s hands, with reporting on “sensitive topics” being tightly controlled. And this brings us back to the coronavirus bill. Censorship is enshrined into law. Opposition perspectives have all but disappeared from the media landscape. Now who’s to report on government overreach? Only outside observers, who can do nothing but scream into the glass dome of Hungary’s information abyss.
The most insidious way that Orban has rigged the government in his favor is through the courts. In 2013, Orban ousted the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and narrowed the Court’s scope, preventing it from ruling on many cases. Not only that though, but the amendment passed in 2013 went further, allowing the new Chief Justice to select which judges would rule on each case (which is obviously problematic since the new appointed justice was loyal to Orban). It also restricted the definition of family to marriage, which completely prevented the court from upholding LGBT and other rights. The final trick Orban had up his sleeve, though, was in changing what rulings justices could cite in their decisions. In the new constitution, the justices are prevented from citing rulings issued prior to the passage of the new constitution in future rulings, essentially undoing decades of progress and development of the court system. I’m certainly not an originalist by any stretch, but this policy is just crazy.
Poland
Poland’s backsliding came in an almost identical way to Hungary’s. In 2015, the PiS (or Law and Justice) party was swept into power, much the same as Orban’s Fidesz party. They also got to work dismantling the system of government, especially with their changes to the Constitutional Tribunal Act, allowing the party to completely stack the courts in their favor. They instituted many of the same policies that Orban did, although with much more pushback.
The newest policy change of note (since most policies were almost identical to Hungary’s) is the censorship of the judiciary. They created a disciplinary mechanism for judges. Which, devoid of context, is a reasonable move. If judges exhibit inappropriate behavior, like obvious conflicts of interest, there should be a mechanism to remove them. Something that does not classify as inappropriate behavior, though, is criticizing the government. Allegedly, judges’ denunciation of the government’s meddling in the judiciary system discredited Poland. As if all the other actions and ridicule weren’t doing enough damage.
Conclusion
- Summary of signs of authoritarianism
- Degradation of free press
- Crackdowns on Protest
- Weak institutions
- Manipulation of Judiciary
- Be wary of populism
- Summary of policies