Eight of the countries that will enter the European Union in May 2004 were until recently governed by totalitarian dictatorships and enslaved by another nation. The return of governments based on the will of the majority of their citizens seemed for decades an unattainable dream in these countries, much as it remains a dream for the citizens of Burma under the rule of its military junta.
Democracy has undoubtedly achieved success around the world. Yet, stunningly, support for democracy is eroding almost everywhere. The Pew Global Attitudes Project for 2003 highlights countries in which few people recognize the importance of elections: 28% in Jordan, 37% in Russia, 40% in Indonesia.
Given the choice between a democratic government and a strong leader, 70% of Russians, 67% of Ukrainians, and 44% of Poles and Bulgarians opt for the latter (this choice is especially common among people in the lowest income brackets). In Latin America, only in Venezuela is support for democracy unambiguously dominant (79%). In other Latin American countries, support for a strong leader either is stronger or nearly as strong as support for democracy.
An opinion poll in Israel shows that the majority of Israelis opt for democracy, but there is a downward trend there as well. Five years ago, 90% of Israelis supported democracy; today the number is 77%. Suicide bombers, the prolonged state of tension, and the overall weakening of the hope for peace have slashed support for democratic government.
In Asia, people in most countries still believe that a “good democracy” is more important than a “strong economy.” The opposite is true, however, in democratic Indonesia, where 69% prefer a strong economy.
Even in a number of European countries with old democratic traditions, a wave of populist, radical political parties opposed to minorities and immigrants has achieved success, sometimes even winning elections. In other European countries, which have only recently embarked on the democratic path, a truly stunning change of mood is visible.
In Russia’s recent parliamentary elections, which were — regardless of various reservations — conducted according to democratic standards, parties advocating political and economic freedom suffered painful defeat, while parties proclaiming hostility to the rule of law and modern pluralist democracy were successful. In December’s parliamentary election in Serbia, the extreme nationalist Radical Party achieved the greatest success, and people being tried before the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, such as Vojislav Seslj, the Radicals’ founder and long-time leader, and Slobodan Milosevic, were elected to parliament.
These results demonstrate the grave dangers that young democracies face, as well as the fragility of democratic culture. They are also a failure of human beings: democratic values do not function without citizens; there can be no democracy without democrats.
This poses dramatic questions about the place of democratic values in international affairs, about the effectiveness of action in support of democracy, and about the way in which democracy is to be understood. Three sets of issues are worth noting.
First, almost no one disputes the claim that democracy serves the cause of peace, but little is being done to make democracy — together with human rights — a basis of the international order. A step was made in this direction in June 2000, when the Community of Democracy, bringing together more than half of the member states of the United Nations, was created in Warsaw.
The creation of that body was an important step, because it introduced a set of criteria that must be fulfilled by countries that want to call themselves democratic. The organization promised to monitor the behavior of members and thus create a chance for coordinated support of the democratic order. It amounted to an agreement that the continuing absence of democracy in many parts of the world is a disgrace.
Second, as the Pew poll suggests, today’s weakening of democratic culture usually takes the form of nostalgia for strong leadership — a clear incitement to launching coups. The weapons of shame and international opprobrium should be mustered to make it impossible for any democratic nation to legitimize a coup in another democratic country. It should become a principle of international relations that democracy and democratization must be supported in all situations; that democratic societies should forego any opportunistic benefits that may come from supporting the enemies of democracy.
Third, democracy should not be reduced to mere respect for majority decisions. Nowadays, a more telling test of the vitality of a democracy is respect for the rights of minorities, recognition of the supremacy of the principles of the rule of law, and the acceptance of legal equality among citizens.
Pericles, in his speech about democracy, as recorded by Thucydides, expressed a timely thought: “Guided by tolerance in private life, we respect the law in public life; we obey all laws, especially those unwritten ones, laws that defend those to whom injustice is being done, and laws the transgression of which brings universal disgrace.” That ancient sense of the potent power of shame should be employed today, lest the democratic tide continue to run out.
