EBP 3

EBP 1-WEEK 3

Mimicking democracy to prolong autocracy

Student ID: 300524318

This article is a journalistic issue written by Andrea-Kendall  Taylor(https://www.cnas.org/people/andrea-kendall-taylor) and Erica Frantz(https://polisci.msu.edu/people/directory/frantz-erica.html)for The Washington quarterly, that speaks about the tendency of modern autocracies to adopt or at least mimic certain parts of a democratic regime to prolong their own rule. The author speaks about how historically autocratic institutions have adapted to the changing face of world politics by becoming more resistant to internal dissent and increased the duration of their regime as well. Yet the author also offers an insight into how sometimes the adoption of more democratic methods has also worked inversely in allowing authoritarian regimes to either backslide or be toppled by liberal minded interests.

The very first line in the article is that democracy has been on a decline for eight straight years. This finding comes from the 2014 report of Freedom House, a non-governmental organization funded by the U.S. According to the report “54 countries registered a decline as opposed to 40 where gains took place” (Freedom in the world pg1). As an example the author quotes the democratic elections in Hungary, where Prime Minister Victor Orban virtually ended the liberal  occurred in non democratic states democracy while dismantling institutions such as the press and the judiciaries.   

Yet the author reaffirms that the majority of the deterioration in democratic practices occurred within authoritarian states, the prime example being Egypt. This is also reflected in the 2014 report of Freedom House, where they mention the upheaval and the toppling of Mohammed Morsi, the first competitively elected president. Though the country does seem to be on a better path with president El-Sisi and his reforms, forced disappearances and torture notwithstanding. But this raises the concern of whether autocratic countries can truly transition to a proper democracy, considering the decreased pace of autocracies to democracies, a mere 1.8% per annum compared to the 3.2% of the post cold war era. The author also states that while there are fewer autocracies compared to the 90s, the autocracies that exist in the present era are certainly more durable. She states that this is due to the rise of “Hybrid Regimes” or “Illiberal Democracies”. She states that they are ubiquitous, or that they exist in all aspects of an autocratic government, where as mentioned above the autocracy introduces democratic functions or policies like competitive elections to better maintain or project the image of a strict but fair government.

In ‘Learning to love institutions’ the author further builds upon how exactly the regning autocrats manipulate the system to succeed where their totalitarian predecessors could not. While totalitarian regimes in the past were brutal in their suppressing of any ‘controversial’ institutions, modern autocrats are far more in tune with both international and domestic outlooks on complete control of society. They use the very systems that their forebears outlawed to solidify their hold over the country. Some countries go so far as to allow competitive elections such as PRI or the Mubarak regime in Egypt. In the pre cold war era, competitive autocracies, an oxymoron in itself, while prevalent were not widespread. But America established itself as the sole superpower in the world with the fall of the Soviet Union, creating a new status quo for the world to follow. The existing autocracies had to adapt to the changing political environment or potentially get swept away in the flow of democracy that followed. And the easiest way for these regimes to do that was to create the image that they were truly the best option for the people, by introducing elections. By winning repeatedly they enforced the idea that they were the supreme power in the country. And this system certainly works, in the 90s there was a 7% chance of a dictatorship collapsing. Now that has reduced to a mere 4%.

In ‘Prolonging Their Power’ and ‘A Double-Edged Sword’ the author elaborates the risks of using ‘Pseudo-Democratic’ institutions to establish their rule. In facilitating multiple interests to consolidate their power they run the risk of toppling their own regimes. One example cited is the KANU, who had to step down after losing the elections in 2006. So, the question is raised: Why do autocracies still support elections? The previous paragraph touches upon this; with America establishing democracy as the new world order, autocracies need these institutions to create a façade of democracy. Also, Western countries have been known to withhold aid from countries that were going through coups or under military rule. Inversely, they would also reward countries advocating political liberalization.  Besides, elections do hold certain perks for autocrats. It helps them secure the loyalty of the elite and rewrd those who guarantee a higher vote turnout. It also has the added advantage of demoralizing rivals by virtue of those very turnouts, in addition to legally immoral means such as disqualifications or false accusations. The author also raises concerns about what the rise in global autocracy means for the future of democracies. She also raises the point that most Cold War dictatorships came to power through actual elections.

To counteract the rise of regimes and to best preserve democracy, the authors emphasize three stratagems:

1.     The best offense is a good offense

This simply involves consolidating democratic power in fragile nations or countries that seem to be backsliding into autocracy.

2.     Strategically allocate resources

With data showing that younger autocracies are likely to democratize, efforts are best spent where they bear fruit.

3.     Counteract incumbent tactics

As mentioned above incumbents use elections to create a sense of superiority while consolidating their power. Yet elections can be a powerful tool for the opposition to create a powerful coalition, especially with international support and funding. The  Media is also a powerful tool, regardless of the restrictions placed on it. Eg: The 2017 jallikattu protests. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_pro-jallikattu_protests)

Conclusion

In a world where democracy is hailed as the holy grail of politics, Kendall-Taylor and Frantz provide an insight into why it seems to have become easier for erstwhile dictators to seize power and more puzzlingly, hold on to it. This article details how democracy in a very insidious turn of events proves itself to be a tool of those who would oppress rather than the oppressed.