I’m not entirely certain that it is correct to suggest that “so many democratic systems failed,” especially when examined alongside competing forms of government, such as the communist totalitarian systems that had dominated much of the world throughout the 20th century but almost all of which collapsed during the 1989-1990 time frame (the Castro brothers’ Cuba and the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua being two notable exceptions, and neither regime, along with the officially communist People’s Republic of China). In fact, democratic regimes have proven remarkably resilient across much of Europe and the Americas. It is correct, however, to note that some democratic systems have, or are failing, and it is worth pondering the reasons for these developments.
When democratic systems fail, it is usually due to one or more problems, chief among these loss of confidence in governing institutions among populations experiencing serious economic difficulties. Additionally, endemic corruption can erode confidence in governments and lead to their failure. Also, democratic systems fail when autocratic individuals succeed in exploiting open societies for their own benefit and, once in power, proceed to undermine democratic structures and replace them with more autocratic institutions. These reasons helped explain the rise of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party of Germany during the 1930s, a period when the Great Depression and Hitler and others’ political machinations succeeded in subverting the democratic processes then in place. Similarly, Venezuela’s fragile democratic system was unable to withstand the organized, militant assault on its institutions that was waged by the late dictator Hugo Chavez and his followers. Chavez was democratically elected, but, once in power, set about undermining democratic institutions and persecuting his political opponents. What resulted was a seriously-dysfunctional socialist system in which individual liberties have been under continuous assault.
As this is an ongoing phenomenon, we do have the luxury of current events to examine, and most of these involve Eastern Europe, specifically, the former satellites of the Soviet Union liberated with the fall of the Berlin Wall. With the exception of Belorus, a culturally and linguistically very close ally of Russia that remained allied to its former colonial power even after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, almost all of these countries adopted democratic forms of government. Today, however, due in no small part to the threat to their cultures and economies emanating from the enormous numbers of emigres and refugees from the Middle East that have migrated north since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, nationalist parties in Hungary and Poland, to name just two, have emerged as major players in their countries’ respective political processes. These nationalist parties are popular due to their opposition to the waves of immigrants arriving within their borders, and their electoral success augurs ill for the future of democratic systems in those countries. (It is worth noting, in this regard, that the fragility of the newly-established democracy in the North America, the United States, felt sufficiently threatened that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which sought to strictly limit immigration to the United States. Today, that legislation continues to serve as a reminder of the perils of intolerance to the survival of democratic systems.)
The absence of protracted periods of peace and economic stability makes the survival of democratic systems particularly tenuous. It is very difficult to consolidate a democratic system in a country that has little or no history of democracy and that is perpetually threatened by outside powers. The Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have successfully established democratic systems, but the constant threat by nearby Russia to reimpose its control over these tiny, militarily-weak nations, which were once part of the Soviet Union, threatens to undermine their efforts at surviving as democracies. In Iraq, a democratic system established after the U.S. invasion that ousted the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein has failed due to incessant strife among competing tribes and Islamic sects, especially the persistent conflict between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, the latter of whom comprise a majority of Iraq’s population and the former of whom continue to resent their loss of power with Saddam’s, a fellow Sunni, removal from power.
In conclusion, there are a number of reasons why democratic systems fail. Historically, though, they are more resilient than one’s professor or teacher may have you believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment