For years now, I’ve seen articles warning of the dangers of democratic backsliding and warnings to the countries which seem to be most at risk. Democratic backsliding can happen anywhere; it is a process which involves small steps of regression within a democratic government.
During 2020-2021, peak COVID times, even Jacinda Ardern’s Labour government was accused of backsliding during the swift changes to create the traffic light system – and the traffic light system itself.
Currently, El Salvador’s Bukele is being criticized for backsliding, after a series of governmental and legislative changes, but most notably his “crackdown on gangs”.
Clearly, New Zealand didn’t slip into an autocratic regime, but had it been in the wrong hands, that time of crisis would have been prime time to pounce.
Authoritarianism can be a result of a country gaining independence from colonialism (as seen with Eretria). Apart from this, authoritarianism appears to excel in environments of destruction and disaster. This is because citizens of the regime are more likely to passively submit to undemocratic changes when they can see the wider benefits of such changes; and when they are desperate for the results that these changes bring.
But there are different levels of backsliding which can occur and of course, the less desperate the country is, the more likely they are to kick up a stir. For instance, if New Zealand used Bukele’s strategy to combat homegrown gang crime, there would likely be much more noise and protest around the backsliding as NZ’s gang crime is not quite at the level of destruction as it was in El Salvador when Bukele came into power. Of course, this is a very slippery slope, but it does give some insight into why people may truly support authoritarian/non-democratic regimes in certain circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment