The Veneer of Democracy - The Alarming Decline in Global Democratic Values
Opinion Analysis by Johnny Achkar, Contributor
April 7th, 2021
Sir Winston Churchill delivered a speech entitled "Sinews of Peace" as the Green Lecturer at Westminster College on March 5, 1946. During which he described an “Iron Curtain” descending upon Europe as Stalin consolidated his territorial gains after the allied victory in World War II. Many historians consider this event as the beginning of the Cold War. The Soviets would later hold a firm grip on Eastern Europe as the destruction of local institutions took place, as well as executions and terror campaigns that enabled Moscow to build a control scheme that would last for decades. However, the Soviet Union’s dominance over Europe would eventually crumble under the sheer pressure from Eastern European peoples’ thirst for freedom and democracy, coupled with the inept leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev. The public pleasure that swept the former Iron Curtain nations in the days following the revolutions that overthrew communist regimes could be summed up in one word: bananas. Due to communist obstacles separating Western Europe from the old Soviet bloc, access to the fruit had long been limited. Despite the fact that the number of democracies in the world is at an all-time high, following the collapse of communism and authoritarian rule in several regions, a number of fundamental factors continue to undermine democracy across the globe. The repression of democracy in a few powerful states, or even a few minor ones, would almost definitely hasten significant changes in today's world order.
In 2020, as the world was devastated by a deadly pandemic, economic and physical insecurity, and armed conflict, defenders of democracy suffered significant new losses in their fight against authoritarian opponents, tipping the international balance in favor of tyranny. In many cases, incumbent leaders used force to crush opponents and settle scores, often in the name of public health, while beleaguered activists faced harsh prison sentences, torture, or assassination due to a lack of effective international support. Authoritarian countries are stepping up their efforts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, tightening their grip at home while seizing the chance to advance their agenda overseas. Autocratic regimes have become more assertive in nature over the last few years. As the United States and other democracies turn inward to deal with domestic issues, an illiberal and undemocratic model of governance, championed predominantly by China, appears to be gaining traction. “Tyranny is once again awakening from its slumber,” former NATO Secretary General Anders Rasmussen testified before the US House of Representatives in February 2019. This assertiveness is not limited to national borders; the US Intelligence Community recently warned, “Russia and China seek to shape the international system and regional security dynamics in order to exert influence.” Aside from the severe consequences for each country's people, if this trend continues, it may lead to a risky new level of competition amongst world powers, at a time when they need to be cooperating to combat the global pandemic and other emerging threats.
Freedom House (2021) Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2021/democracy-under-siege
While autocratic regimes appear to be powerful from the outside, they are also fragile. Their leaders are continuously concerned about the stability of the regime. A crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic gives those leaders an opportunity to consolidate power and tighten their grip on the nation. The COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, presents a unique set of profit opportunities. Due to people's concerns being at an all-time high, it is only natural that they are looking at their leaders to bring peace and order. In the face of a crisis of this magnitude, people expect a quick, resilient, and carefulnational response, which can only be supplied by a strong government. Countries' attempts to track the virus's spread have resulted in the collection of vast amounts of personal data. Smartphone monitoring, for example, could be essential for tracing the virus's spread, but in the wrong hands, those powers could easily lead to civil liberty abuses.
On a perhaps more concerning note, China’s methods to track and differentiate it’s population during the pandemic would definitely fit under the aforementioned umbrella. Individuals are assigned a color, orange, yellow, or red, based on their probability of transmitting the virus, according to a revised health code system. Those assigned yellow must self-quarantine, while those assigned red have their location promptly reported to the police. A green code is required to enter almost all public places, including the subway, markets, and workplaces. Workers are stationed outside the barriers, where individuals are screened. However, the public is still unaware of the app's underlying mechanisms, which have been installed in 200 cities and are being rolled out nationwide. The app was established in Hangzhou with the help of the local government and police. Ant Financial is a sister company of Alibaba, the e-commerce giant. The level of cooperation between the tech giant and the Chinese Communist Party is unmatched. Although Ant Financial claims that all parties involved with the data follow security and privacy regulations, each time a user scans the application; their location is sent to the app's servers, which are under the control of the central government. The usage of this app could lead to the transmission of highly specific location data linked to individual citizens over time. Claims that using the app is only a Band-Aid solution to the pandemic are debunked by history. China often uses major events, according to Maya Wang of the Human Rights Watch, "to introduce new monitoring tools that outlast their original purpose."
Authoritarian regimes are increasingly using state media and social media platforms to spread misinformation across borders, as has been the case for several years. The aim of such disinformation campaigns is typically to take advantage of the open information environment in democracies, in order to undermine perceived opponents from within by sowing discord and conflict among the populace. They do this by spreading conspiracies, amplifying hateful and divisive rhetorics, and intervening in elections. For example, in the late 1980s, the Soviet Union orchestrated a worldwide misinformation campaign to persuade the world's public that the AIDS virus was conceived as a biological weapon by the United States. This campaign aimed to incite anti-Americanism in developing countries and divert attention away from American allegations that the Soviet Union was developing biological weapons.
The rise of major social media platforms has given the Kremlin an opportunity to modernize this decades-old approach. Russia's information warfare machine currently operates as a complex and intertwined ecosystem of actors, including state-controlled media outlets, social media accounts, intelligence agencies, and cyber criminals. According to an internal analysis by the EU's External Action Service disinformation project, EUvsDisinfo, “significant disinformation campaign by Russian state media and pro-Kremlin outlets regarding Covid-19 is ongoing,” Pro-Kremlin content, according to the report, endorsed the conspiracy theory that the West created the virus.
The Russian government is not the only one hoping to profit from the pandemic.
China has launched a widespread misinformation campaign in an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that the virus originated within its borders. Masked trolls or false online personas did not spread the virus; Zhao Lijian, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, floated a conspiracy theory that the US Army spread the virus. In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's regime has imprisoned journalists who have questioned the government's effectiveness and incarcerated individuals for spreading "provocative news." The policy is the latest step in a terrifying trend that began before the pandemic: at least 180 media outlets have been shut down in the country since a failed coup attempt in July 2016. The delightful dictator of Turkmenistan Mr. Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov has even directed the Turkmen authorities and media to avoid using the word ‘coronavirus’. It is as if it never happened.
In this Central Asian country, the state’s media is silent on the effects of coronavirus, and the term has even been removed from health information brochures circulating around schools, hospitals, and workplaces. Turkmenistan's government is putting its people in danger by doing so. Silencing independent media and dissidents is counterproductive at a time when reliable, scientific information is critical to the well-being of communities all over the world. Hundreds of violations of media freedom have been identified since the pandemic began, according to the International Press Institute.
The term ‘Flawed Democracies’ refers to nations where lections are free and equitable, and basic civil liberties are respected, but flaws in democracies still arise. These flaws include media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political oppositions and critics. When Prime Minister Narendra Modi was elected to head the world’s largest democracy in 2014, he set about combatting rampant government corruption, while also seeking to revive a slowing economy. Prime Minister Modi also seeks to ‘unify’ India. “This will be one country, one constitution, and even one language,” as Modi and his deputy have said.
Mr. Modi revoked Jammu and Kashmir's autonomous status in August 2019, the only region in India with a majority of Muslims. Kashmir had a special right to decide who was allowed to live there within India. This status was important because only those who were registered could own land, and it provided privileged access to education and jobs, allowing it to keep its Muslim population safe. While the authoritarian may wish to create a unified community, through law, language, and even violence, that community will always have an ‘other.' The ‘other’ represents an element of society that risks curtailing the authoritarian’s plan.
Modi and his party's Hindu nationalism has attempted to single out Muslims as individuals who are distinct, filthy, unwanted, aggressive, and undeserving of inclusion in the Indian comity throughout its history, particularly since 2014. The meat-eating Muslim has been lynched in public. Muslim men and women who dared to love outside their religion have been ridiculed and even linked to terrorism. Mr. Modi engaged in widespread voter suppression in 2019, eliminating an estimated 120 million eligible voters from the electoral rolls by requiring residency documentation. The goal was to exclude non-Indian religious groups from the Hindutva ideology, which resulted in the expulsion of 70 million Muslims and Dalits. Modi took a chance by clearing the rolls, betting that a combination of voter suppression of minorities, as well as the accumulation of votes from the Hindu majority, would be enough to ensure electoral victory.
In the end, the US and its democratic allies should take the lead in the worldwide effort to safeguard democracy. Recognizing the dangers of a global democratic decline in policy debates is a crucial first step towards developing a comprehensive approach to democracy support. Significant foreign policy changes may take time to manifest themselves, however acknowledging the dangers that our democracies face allows us to have the right conversation.