Power Kills - The relationship between democide and democracy
Democracy, Power, Genocide and Mass Murder, both introduce and expand on the concept of Democide; the killing of an individual or group by their government. R. J Rummel is both the author behind the article and the mind behind the development of democide as an individual concept that encapsulates a much broader issue of power and ideologies wielded and enforced by governmental structures. Rummel’s work looks specifically at regimes from 1900-1987 and argues that placing regimes on a scale between democracy and totalitarianism is the best way to predict the likelihood of democide occurring.
Rummel refers to Democide as the combination of genocide, mass murder, and mega murder (when the number of fatalities surpasses 1 million) by governments. Importantly, Rummel specifically excludes several causes of death:
- Indirect killing as a result of military action
- Killing of people With weapons in their hands (For example; police killing an active armed shooter)
- Death by judicial execution
These exemptions to democide allow for a component of objective reasonability when evaluating the potentially dangerous nature of a regime.
Rummel uses the work of Gurr (1990) in determining ‘political power scores’ throughout his research. These political power scores allow for the placement of different regimes on the democracy-totalitarian scale. Considerations of this scoring system are;
- Executive recruitment
- Constraints on the Chief Executive
- Centralisation of the state
Rummel’s theory of democide is used throughout the article to reflect on the dangers of both authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. This is done in comparison with total democratic societies, which are shown to have fewer instances of democide occurring throughout the 19th century. The basis of this proposition is that democratic leaders feel less threatened by political opposition, and are more constrained in their use of power. These constraints and a lack of threats provide fewer circumstances under which a leader may think a form of democide is necessary for political stability or security.
What is shown through Rummel’s research is also a more general connection between democracy and conflict. Democratic societies tend to enter into less foreign conflict, as well as being less likely to commit democide. This is reflective of the more equal balance of powers within a democracy, and how this balance, combined with a more pure separation of powers and general political stability and restraint reduces tension, both on a domestic and international level.
More Totalitarianism = More Democide
New Zealand provides an example of a positive relationship between democracy and democide, where a democratic nation is hesitant to be involved in foreign conflicts, as well as typically avoiding instances of domestic tension. This hesitance to encourage or incite violence as a method of political, social or economic control is reflected in legislation, whereby citizens' rights are enforced through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, in a court system compliant with fundamental democratic principles of the rule of law and separation of powers. The lack of a death sentence within New Zealand’s judicial system is also reflective of democratic societies being inclined to non-violent dispute resolution.
In Contrast with New Zealand, is Russia, which is an example of a negative relationship between democracy and democide. Vladimir Putin has ruled Russia in an authoritarian style since 1999. Events in Russia, including the 2011 election protests which alleged fraud within the electoral process, indicate the severe lack of democracy. This combined with the suspicious deaths of Putin’s political opposition, arguably to retain control, indicates that the lack of democracy in Russia forms a causal connection with democide, by the need for Putin to remain powerful.
These examples and maps illustrate a truth in Rummel’s theory of a connection between democide and democracy, providing insight into the causes of violent government action, and how different types of governmental systems and leadership structures may affect citizens and their rights through the threat and risk of democide. However, there is a critique that can be made of Rummel’s definition of democide and the method by which democide is measured.
This critique is in the specific exception that government killing of people who are armed, is not considered democide. This exception provides leeway for governments to avoid democide accusations, depending on the narrative presented of the individual or group's death. It should be asked; to what extent does a government or government law enforcement need to have evidence and confidence that an individual is armed, and poses a threat to civilians because of this, will the killing of the individual not fall under the category of democide?
Democracy, Power, Genocide and Mass Murder, published by R.J. Rummel establishes and explains the theory of democide. It also provides a useful analysis of how democracy, or rather lack thereof, is a strong indicator of how likely democide is to occur within a particular society. Rummel also discusses how the need to retain power and political stability in an autocratic or totalitarian regime drives a want to commit democide. Whilst there is a weakness in the democide exception of governmental killing of armed individuals, the theory of democide proves to be both useful and effective in proving Rummel’s conclusion that; power kills.
Resources:
Democracy, Power, Genocide and Mass Murder:
Rummel, R.J. (1995). The Journal of Conflict Resolution. Democracy, Power, Genocide, and Mass Murder. 39 (1). 3-26.
Website for democracy world map:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/state-of-democracy-around-the-world-2023/
Another Article From Rummel on Democide, Providing Facts and Figures for Claims:
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Putin’s Leadership of Russia and the 2011 Protests.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-15047823
No comments:
Post a Comment