Keeping Up Appearances

[Contributory BP]

In light of the classification of democratic and non-democratic regimes, a discrepancy arising is the apparent disconnect between the regime’s written laws (e.g. constitution) and the practical reality of their governance. Namely this entails two situations:

1) That the state has principles and freedoms typically associated with democratic rule yet denies its citizens either knowledge or practice of them, or 

2) That the state appears or purports to be democratic in practice by holding civic events that are, in reality, shams (e.g. elections that make no difference, or various civic freedoms that cannot properly be practiced) the actuality being an oppressive rule where the whole principles or freedoms aren’t upheld. 

The question that follows is, why claim to be democratic? Involved in this appearance - superficial as it may be - are efforts like holding elections, even if they hold no weight over the change (or lack of) of power and governance, and the appearance of various civic and political freedoms like voting, or demonstration, or media. What is the motivation for keeping up appearances?

Three initial possibilities arise as to why.

1) Special Benefits

Classification requires the division, at least in this context, between non-democratic and democratic regimes. And from this we can perhaps derive that this division holds special significance. Each regime type will have it’s own conduct and network of commonality. These commonalities form the basis of a sort of tribalism, much like a sort of tribalism - what we can parallel to nationalism or patriotism perhaps - that draws people together and dictates various special allegiances and merits to the nation or state that divides them from other nations or states. If follows that a priority for our own is created; we favour our own over others (generally speaking). Reasoning this, it would follow that special benefits would be provided or given to those who hold strong commonalities with one regime-type over another. Perhaps these special benefits are given by democratic regimes to other democratic (or apparent democratic) regimes, such as seats on the UN, participation or inclusion in treaties or negotiations, economic benefits or tariff concessions, and so on. This is all within the globalising context of an increasingly interconnected and interdependent globe, particularly concerning economy. It would therefore be somewhat of a disadvantage to be excluded from this ‘club’. This is one possibility answering as to the incentive of democratic appearance. 

2) Avoiding Unrest

Or perhaps the theatre of staging elections and ‘allowing’ the franchise to participate is an attempt to convince the population of a state’s sovereignty and justification for rule; even if this is gained through deceptive measures. The incentive for the appearance of sovereignty to the constituency is the avoidance of unrest or civil trouble. This unrest is more likely precipitated by factors like globalised telecommunication, where constituents have access to information and insight into the regimes of other states and other citizens’ way of life that is appealing if under another state’s democratic rule. Think arab spring. So perhaps it’s just an easier way of keeping the people at bay, and in general sugar coating reality (which I might add, happens in countries like New Zealand, though perhaps in different ways). So avoidance of civil unrest or trouble is another incentive for democratic appearance. 

3) Historical Context

A third possibility arises by examining the historical context of decolonized regimes that claim to be democratic. Think of any African state or other states under colonial rule. With ebbing post-WWII imperialism alongside the emergence of the UN and its ideals of free peoples, many countries fought or were granted (probably after struggle), independence. The arising movements both political, racial, cultural and civil, of freedom and self-determination on the waves of nationalist sentiment and ideal, were breaking away from the oppressive imperialism of before. So perhaps it is a matter of political allegiance or sentiment of old, or even civil culture and history that dictates in a subliminal way, the strive for democratic ideals that are often closely associated with democratic regimes; even if this strive is achieved in superficial terms. It would also suggest that such a history where the birth of a nation/state is from nationalism or independence, breeds ideals that can be used as a national interest or pseudo-morality for its people to rally around and be kept busy with but in fact masking a very different, if not oppositional, reality. 

All three are possibilities, though context given for each state (present and historical) and the unique qualities of each state make it harder to, at least prima facie, apply these initial possibilities as concrete answers. 

If anyone has thoughts on this, other answers, criticisms or questions, I’d be interested to hear them and discuss this further.