The following article originally appeared in The Brookings Institution's 'Order from Chaos' blog on April 22, 2019.
It will be an important year for democracy around the
world. In April and May, India heads to the polls in what will be the largest
organized political activity in history. Israel, Indonesia, and Ukraine just
held very contentious elections while Spain, Australia, Canada, Tunisia,
Argentina, Sri Lanka, and the European Parliament are set for important votes
later this year. Meanwhile, the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign season is already
underway.
These electoral contests come at a tough time for
democracy, not just because of notable instances of resurgent authoritarianism
and populism, but also disruption and corruption in places like France, Brazil,
South Africa, and the Philippines. But it would be premature to conclude that
democracy is in crisis. Pessimists often forget the tumult that democracy in
the United States, France, and India experienced in the 1960s and 1970s. Most
large-scale assessments of democracy suggest stagnation in recent years rather
than decline: Today, over two-thirds of people living in democratic societies
are outside the West and in many countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America
democracy is broadening and deepening. And public opinion about democracy
remains strong in India, Africa, and Northern Europe, even as skepticism is
growing in the United States, Middle East, Japan, and Australia.
First, consider the role of identity in contemporary
politics. Whether in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany,
India, Indonesia, or Myanmar, the deepening of identity in political
organization and discourse is becoming more pronounced, whether among religious
majorities, ethnic minorities, or regions such as Scotland or Catalonia. This
is occurring despite prior expectations that globalization would lead to great
cosmopolitanism and the dilution of strong collective identities. In the United
States, Europe, or Australia the question of identity is largely grounded in
debates about immigration. In India—or other post-colonial states such as
Indonesia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, or Kenya—identity politics have deeper roots,
and relate to the distribution of power among various sub-national groups.
Nonetheless, a shared challenge that all democracies will have to face is how
to negotiate political pluralism in a globalized world.
A second shared challenge relates to inequality,
especially real and perceived inequality of opportunity. Despite consistent
economic growth in many parts of the world and improvements in human
development indicators among most developing economies, the perception of
growing inequality has tested the functioning of democracy. Populist
nationalism is consequently interspersed with populist economic policies:
Consider the interspersing of white nationalism in the United States with
stagnant wages among blue collar workers. Economic malaise among youth or the
aspirational middle class can also be exploited by populists. Finding ways to
improve the semblance of equality of opportunity will be a common challenge
among both developed and developing democracies, particularly with the advent
of new technologies that could contribute to productivity increases and capital
gains. These factors risk disproportionately benefiting wealthier investors at
the expense of employment opportunities for the poor and middle class.
The third shared challenge is the new information
environment. Although the availability of information via digital
telecommunications had been expected to bolster democracy, it has also
paradoxically resulted in the undermining of democratic functioning. This
appears to be the result of a number of factors, including online political
echo chambers, misinformation (“fake news”), and increased political theater.
Digital democracy has recreated elements of direct democracy, undermining the
mechanisms for deliberation and compromise that are necessary for
representative democracy to function. In India, for example, online propaganda
has become a major battleground for democratic politics, but as in other
countries, it risks compromising informed decisionmaking, one of the essential
criteria of a functioning democracy.
Finally, while less uniform, all democracies remain
vulnerable to interference by external actors. This has become a particularly
contentious issue in the United States and Europe. While a country like India
has so far been relatively immune to external interference in its political
processes—thanks to an innovative Electoral Commission and tight controls on
foreign involvement in academia and the media—this phenomenon has started to be
well documented in other more vulnerable countries, often through the use of
economic leverage. In Sri Lanka, for example, a Chinese port construction firm
made large payments towards the re-election campaign of President Mahinda
Rajapaksa (who narrowly lost in 2015). Rajapaksa had earlier approved onerous
Chinese lending terms for an unprofitable but strategically located port, and
China offered to waive the resulting debt in exchange for equity in the
project. Similar interference has been documented in other democratic systems,
while various other forms of direct political interference have become hotly
debated, whether in Washington, Paris, or Canberra.
There are no easy solutions to these collective
challenges. While identity politics can be managed in various ways it will
require leadership and compelling narratives. But it cannot be entirely
ignored, as cosmopolitan elites have been wont to do. Populist measures to
address inequality—tax hikes for the wealthy, stimulus packages, and job
guarantees—may provide seductively easy solutions that appeal to voters. But as
the extreme example of Venezuela reminds us, such steps can be taken too far.
Meanwhile, addressing misinformation opens up the Pandora’s box of censorship,
which is difficult given various countries’ laws and norms concerning freedom
of expression. And while electoral systems can be hardened against foreign
interference, countermeasures can also result in subjective, arbitrary, or
seemingly discriminatory decisions.
For now, the democratic community could do more to cast a
wider net and learn from each other’s experiences. In the near future,
democracy won’t be the same. But all democratic polities, if they are to
evolve, will have little choice but to learn and adopt best practices from each
other.