By Keith Best
The economies of so many democratic countries are in a mess, which regular and frequent elections fail to restore, as by their very nature they are inhibitors of long-term plans. Even issues of common concern and some degree of consensus, such as reform of the health service which requires long-term planning and execution, seem to falter as electorates take their revenge on political parties that fail to bring near-term gratification. Perhaps it is small wonder, therefore, that young people are disillusioned and prefer authoritarianism to democracy (albeit never having lived under a dictatorship with its consequent loss of individual freedoms such as we see in China, Russia and North Korea: the examples are legion but one of the latest is of Pastor Romanyuk who preached a sermon against the war in Ukraine and was sentenced to four years hard labour). A survey published by the Adam Smith Institute showed that 33% of 18-30-year-olds would prefer authoritarianism to govern Britain, rather than democracy. Winston Churchill famously stated in the House of Commons on 11 November 1947 “Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” Perhaps we should take note.
Democracy is currently a dying breed. The Economist Intelligence Unit reported that despite a record election year in 2024—when more than half of the global population went to the polls—its Democracy Index recorded another democratic decline. The average score fell to 5.17, its lowest since the index began in 2006, down from 5.23 in 2023. Only 45% of the world’s population lives in a democracy, 39% under authoritarian rule, and 15% in “hybrid regimes” that combine electoral democracy with authoritarian tendencies. Another impeccable source, Freedom House, rates people’s access to political rights and civil liberties in 208 countries and territories through its annual Freedom in the World report. It rates India, the most numerous democracy in the world, as only partly free. It claims that eighty percent of the world’s people live in countries or territories that are rated Not Free or only Partly Free in their annual Freedom in the World report. Their further report Nations in Transit 2024: A Region Reordered by Autocracy and Democracyfound that 10 out of the 29 countries under analysis suffered declines in their overall Democracy Score, while only five countries registered score improvements. While Poland’s score declined due to unprecedented electoral manipulation by the incumbent Law and Justice party during 2023, an opposition coalition managed to secure victory by campaigning on respect for the rule of law and individual rights. In the 29 countries stretching from Central Europe to Central Asia the trend led to a twentieth consecutive year of decline in democratic governance for the region. Moreover, beware the use of “democratic” in the title of a country – like the former East Germany (“Deutsche Demokratische Republik”) or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which subverts the adjective to convey what it is not!
Some democracies shift to the right and towards greater state control in answer to perceived threats: Ecuador, once considered Latin America’s “island of peace,” is now among the most violent countries in the world driven by surge in transnational drug trafficking and, in response, President Daniel Noboa Azín’s militarized crackdown has undermined human rights protections. In the UK where the public and media are exercised by asylum seekers crossing the Channel in small boats, political parties are considering curtailing or even renouncing the European Convention on Human Rights (largely drafted by the British: the UK was a founding member of the Council of Europe) which underpins many of our freedoms beyond those of refugees.
Are the disillusioned young people correct? Under threat of conflict from international actors, disruption of international trade, climate change, domestic economic and social problems, international trafficking of drugs and human beings are we destined to become less liberal and seek more authoritarian answers on the veneer of a thinly disguised and volatile popular mandate?
We should not make the mistake of taking a sense of frustration and general malaise, however, as being a denial of the concept of democracy, although it is the fall-guy when people want a whipping-boy. Trends are more encouraging over a longer timeframe. As pointed out by Our World in Data many more countries have become democracies over the last two hundred years and “In the late 18th century, no country could be meaningfully characterized as a democracy.” Even if democracies in name, countries were governed by an elite with enormous power and with electorates only a fraction of the population – manifested in Britain by “rotten boroughs” – far from the idea of universal franchise. Edmund Burke, who railed in his Reflections against the horrors of the French Revolution, was first elected for Wendover with an electorate of 130 and in the gift of Lord Fermanagh. We should recall that women under the age of 30 did not get the vote until 1928 – less than 100 years ago. Progress has been made even if now we see a retrenchment.
Yet a cancer remains at the heart of too many democracies which undermine its credibility: corruption. It can take many forms and not just the power of money either in its sequestration or its use as bribery; political preferment and nepotism can be used in unscrupulous ways to bolster an individual leader who has plenipotentiary powers in such appointment. Such is the way in which cabals are created – an oligarchy within a democracy. Many constitutions pride themselves on a separation of powers and provisions which are meant to inhibit such excesses yet only a cursory examination of the controversy over the use of executive orders in the world’s most powerful democracy (the equivalent of “Henry VIII orders” in the UK in which the Government is given secondary legislative powers not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny through enabling loose primary legislation) show that such constitutions are not wholly effective. Democracy has to be renewed constantly if it is to remain relevant and effective. Africa has no deficit in democracy – indeed, there are more Ministers per head of population in that continent than in any other – but is rife with corruption which needs to be eliminated if its people are to have confidence in their leaders. Africa, however, is not alone.
The populists have the attention. Despite being the most unpopular President (his net approval rating on the Economist’s chart, is -13% with 55% disapproving) Trump still has his loyal supporters who seem to idolise him whatever he does (an interviewer discovered that some do not listen to or watch the news so maybe they do not know what he is doing anyway!).
In the UK a recent Express online poll showed 86% of respondents felt that Nigel Farage would be the next Prime Minister (despite the inescapable statistics of our first-past-the-post voting system which means that the colour of the Government is decided in only less than a third of all constituencies). True, that if this Government were to introduce proportional representation (although it would be difficult to see how that could be done without a referendum in which almost certainly it would be rejected) those figures could change, which, of course, is why a central policy of Reform is to have proportional representation (no doubt swallowing the scruples that it may be “European”). Nevertheless, when seasoned pollsters and political pundits such as Sir John Curtice opine that it is possible that Reform could form a Government or at least be the power broker then we should not rule it out. Maybe the only way out for the Conservatives (despite their traditional opposition to it) is a proportional voting system in which Reform voters would mark them second on the ballot paper.
Those of us who believe that the only way to lasting world peace and stability is not a set of competing power blocs threatening and taking action against each other but an enforceable observance of the rule of law and a global governance system which enables the major players to act in concert responsibly on behalf of the planet should not lose faith. The fact that many of our international organisations do not work as needed does not invalidate their existence. Like imperfect national constitutions those international ones need to be improved rather than abolished with a concentration on eliminating the sticking points. The threat of and actual use of the veto by the P5 needs to be curtailed (and the UN General Assembly has already flexed its muscles in that direction). The UN Security Council, to be seen to be valid and authoritative, needs to reflect not just the victors of the Second World War but the realpolitik of the major players in the world today (and the debate about whether major countries like India and Brazil should be permanent members or not continues – certainly there is strong opinion that any new permanent members should not be able to exercise the veto). Ideally, we should see a mandatory jurisdiction for the International Court of Justice settling disputes between states (rather than an advisory and permissive one at present).
There are so many other sensible adaptations to replace the current haphazard way in which we govern our planet (now fully discovered in all its richness, diversity and vulnerability) with a more effective global governance in which all have confidence. Federalism with its concept of government from the bottom up rather than top down is an enduring answer to a political solution to seemingly intractable division.
In the meantime, how do we deal with autocrats? We should not ignore them, indeed we should engage with them and put ourselves in their position even if only on the principle that you need to understand your opponent to know their weak and strong points (a practice drummed into me as a barrister. Despite a difference in ideologies there will remain several points of contact of mutual interest and there is always the hope that by a process of osmosis some democratic ideals might rub off. As a noted peace and reconciliation activist Rabbi Dovid Lewis has commented “hope is a game we play together.” We need the curiosity to discover what makes the other tick. Above all, for democracy to survive it needs not only the constant renewal to which I refer but also a healthy injection of trust (the Arabic word “Amanah” meaning trust, honesty, and loyalty in Islam refers to a profound concept of responsibility, integrity, and fulfilling one’s duties towards God and creation). We can look beyond the New Testament to Confucius for the concept of doing unto others what we would wish they do to us. In Africa “ubuntu” sums up our human responsibility to others – “I am because we are.”
It is only with confidence in the integrity of a system, surrounding by effective safeguards against human frailty to combat nepotism, corruption and abuse of power, exhibited by all public servants (for that is what they are even though some may regard themselves as the masters) that we can reach the moral high ground. It means politicians saying what they mean and doing what they say rather than playing to the populist gallery and it requires a healthy dose of cynicism from us all to hold them to this. So let us be optimistic, as Abraham Lincoln exhorted in his Gettysburg address, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Keith Best
11/09/2025