By Keith Best
I want to take a global perspective. Democracy throughout the world in under threat and in retreat.Global democracy is currently in a sustained, long-term retreat, characterized by a steady decline in freedom, weakening democratic norms, and rising authoritarianism across various regions. Data from Freedom House and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance shows over 15 consecutive years of decline in democratic freedoms, impacting both developing nations and established democracies. Countries that had previously democratized have seen a regression due to corruption, populism, and breakdowns in the rule of law. Moreover, we should be wary of those countries that style themselves as “democratic” such as the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea and, of course, the former DemocratischeDeutches Republik or what was East Germany. Over the past decade, a growing proportion of the global population is living in nations experiencing democratic erosion, with roughly half of the world’s democracies in decline according to some studies.
In order to find a solution we need to identify and analyse the problem.
What is perhaps most alarming is that the continent of Africa, the fastest growing numerically in population, is experiencing a significant, uneven retreat, marked by military coups, constitutional manipulation, and decreased freedoms, with over 77% of the population living in countries where security and democratic standards have deteriorated since 2014. Key drivers include the rise of authoritarianism as leaders manipulate laws to extend terms, widespread corruption, and failing to deliver economic growth. A surge in unconstitutional government changes, particularly in West and Central Africa (e.g., Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Niger, Gabon), has halted progress in many areas. Leaders often bypass term limits, changing rather than breaking laws to maintain power. The suppression, imprisonment or prevention of participation by opposition leaders are testimonies to this slide into autocracy.
Against the backdrop of the undermining of global institutions we see the rise of autocracies in Russia and China which gives succour to other dictators in the world and encourages them to flex their muscles. Are the democracies combatting this trend? Sadly, we know that they are not. The most powerful democracy in the world seemed about to retreat into isolationism under the banner of “America First” the consequences of which we saw played out in the rise of tyranny and slaughter of two world wars until the attitude changed. Then we had the joint American Israeli attack on Iran which, however unpleasant and repressive the regime there may be, has universally been condemned as unlawful – and that is before the President condoned and threatened actions against civilian targets which amount to war crimes. The most populous democracy in the world, India, has manifestly failed to condemn Russia for an act of naked aggression. We may understand Mr Modi wishing to be seen to be unaligned with other major nuclear powers but to fail to uphold in language if not in action a clear breach of international law is not just disturbing but a step down a slippery slope to international anarchy. If major democracies such as these are failing in demonstrating universal values of the rule of law and adherence to hard-won norms of international behaviour then there is little chance for the rest.
Maybe that this is one of the reasons that many young people have lost faith in democracy. In the run up to 2024 UK General Election, a team of academics from Royal Holloway, University of London, conducted a survey which suggested that almost half of the young people surveyed are dissatisfied with how democracy works in the UK. Globally, while young people back democracy over dictatorship by large margins (eg 2 to 1 in some studies), roughly 63% feel that democracy in their countries is “in trouble”. Millennials are the most disillusioned (University of Cambridge study): they and Gen Z are more disaffected with democracy than previous generations (Gen X or baby boomers) were at the same age. Only 37% of people aged 18–29 in OECD countries trust their national government. This is not to say that young people are not politically engaged: youth are active, but they often prefer non-traditional political action such as protests and social media campaigns over traditional partisan politics. In some regions, there is growing openness to strong leaders who bypass parliament and elections, or even military rule, due to dissatisfaction with the pace of change. This is a real challenge to the structure, execution and capacity of democracy to effect beneficial and lasting change which, of course, is not easy with fixed term or maximum term elections meaning that a new government often has little chance to implement durable change and, if it proves unpopular, is likely to see its actions reversed by a new government of a different complexion. Many countries have seen their growth and direction stultified by this see-saw politics. Yet it is hardly surprising as, hopefully, most democracies do reflect public opinion and that in itself is both mercurial and can change rapidly.
What chance does democracy have over autocracy when its own institutions so supinely allow autocracy to triumph? Yet the malaise is even worse when one examines the nature of democracy today. So often the popular mood is swayed not by reason or thought or the result of dialectic but more through following demagogues with their own agenda and now influenced as well by social media channels with a deliberate (albeit sometimes thinly veiled) policy position. We should never forget that in 1933 Hitler was elected by the people (accepting that there was also mass coercion and harassment by the Brown Shirt thugs).
Have we just witnessed the phenomenon of the overriding desire for change and easy answers provided to complex problems being paramount over reason in the recent US Presidential election? How many in India now regret the religiously divisive message of Mr Modi (as rather demonstrated in the recent elections)? To the ordinary observer today the conclusion is that autocracies can deliver while democracies are stifled by short-termism and volatile public opinion. It is true that history is littered with autocratic economic decisions that have brought disaster and mass famine: the Stalin and Mao Tse Dung agricultural reforms, agrarian central management in Ethiopia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe to mention but a few; but the current observer will see how China’s rapid growth has been by developing manufacture and exports at the expense of stimulating domestic demand and welfare so that it now has a massive balance of trade surplus while democracies like UK and USA have trade deficits. True, that failure to address the impact of AI on its domestic workforce, failure to have adequate housing to replace the slums and care for an ageing population are massive issues that China will have to confront – but that is the future and, in any event, a police state can suppress any popular dissent. In the democracies the pressure always is on spending on welfare, pensions, health – the wellbeing of the people of today (as we have now realised at the expense of investment in industry and defence) and it makes unfavourable comparisons.
Yet this is a spurious argument unless we ask the question: why are the democracies seemingly so inadequate to counter this rise in populism and leaning towards authoritarianism being the answer to the ills of the world? Is it the mechanics of democracy – the voting systems, the political apathy, the party system or is it something more fundamental? The answer is complex but is partly explained by politicians with their agenda for what they think is required rather than couching that in the attitudes of those whom they wish to convince. Increasingly, there appears to be a gulf between the political rhetoric of mainstream parties and the desires of the electorate. Yes, politicians should lead but they also need to be responsive to what the people want (otherwise they will not be elected!). On major issues such as justice, migration and distribution of resources it is no good dismissing fears as being antediluvian or racially or societally motivated: these concerns are real and must be addressed. The problem is that it is possible in a democratic Government in a one-party state or even in a plural democracy where the Government has an overwhelming majority facing an enfeebled Opposition for that Government to resemble an autocracy and become a tyranny – what the late Lord Hailsham, former Lord Chancellor of the UK, described as an “elective dictatorship”. Although not exclusive to that continent one only has to look at the clinging to power long after the original mandate has expired of some African leaders and only recently in DRC the old trick of extending the tenure of office while in control. Perhaps we should not be surprised that in some cases the general public cannot distinguish precisely between the two and that many are prepared to live under a benevolent dictatorship, namely a government that has a leader considered by some as a dictator but has the support of the people, unlike a malevolent dictator who only focuses on themselves, their government and their supporters!
Most people are content to be told what to do so long as it is not inimical to their own interests and will take comfort in conformity knowing that the alternative is a free-for-all. We pay our taxes, abide by the rule of law and expect others to do so not only nationally but also internationally as the opposite is anarchy. In the World Federalist Movement/Institute for Global Policy in our search for global governance we have often quoted our desire for the force or law rather than the law of force. With the degrading and sidelining of our international institutions as well as disregard of solemn treaty obligations we are, indeed, seeing strong nations exercising the law of force – with little chance of smaller nations being able to resist unless they join a defensive alliance or rest under the shadow of protection of a powerful neighbour.
In effect, the world is morphing from a two-power hegemony characterised by the Cold War for the last 80 years into a multi-polar world of domination by USA, China, Russia, India and others that may soon be added to the list with their satellites. This will be, and is now, a most unstable world. Add to that the proliferation of other actors probably possessing nuclear weapons and the low-level technology that is needed to hack into and disrupt through cyber-sabotage the systems fundamental for the sustenance of life (water, energy, essential supplies) and we have almost a definition of anarchy, defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as absence of government or a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority. Is the world any safer by having several conglomerations of states that can wipe out humanity rather than just two? Everyone will make their own judgement.
What can be done? Security of the integrity of elections and of the voting public to be able and indeed encouraged to vote are key. Democracy must be constantly renewed in the light of obvious defects which may take the form of uncharted and excessive financial donations aimed at buying political influence and unwarranted interference, use of the military or thugs to intimidate electors, ensuring fair voting systems and transparency in the way in which elections are conducted. On a more controversial note the most successful democracies are those that do not try to interfere in every walk of life, which allow their citizens latitude to do and spend as they wish within clearly defined parameters and which understand the limits of their capacity to change. A government based on freedom under the law without dictating too much what people can do and think is one that distinguishes itself markedly from autocratically imposed regulation of everyone’s lives. It is over-promising and under-delivering that causes the greatest disillusion in democratic politics – democracies should be more modest in raising public expectation of what they can provide. The trick is to always exceed what you propose to do.
I returned last month from being an official election observer to the elections in Bangladesh (I had previously served as an OSCE observer in the Ukrainian Presidential election) and there was both good and some suspicion. International observers, including ourselves, reckoned that the election was free and fair and conducted transparently (despite a major party being banned from participating) and many other states have accepted its legitimacy. Its transparency was assisted by the Electoral Commission’s excellent and comprehensive handbook setting out precisely the roles and responsibilities of the election agents and officials and how polling stations should be organised. Alongside the election was a referendum for constitutional change including adding a second revising chamber to the current unicameral legislature, elected on the basis of the votes cast for each political party in a general election. It humbled me to realise that the so-called Mother of Parliaments in the UK still has an appointed rather than an elected second chamber, the House of Lords with both major parties committed to change but never getting around to doing anything about it! Many of us are alarmed (as are many Americans) at the use of Executive Orders by the current President (what in the UK we call Henry VIII orders) which ostensibly enable the President to bypass Congress in ways that the Founding Fathers perhaps never contemplated. It may well be that if the Supreme Court does not intervene more actively then Congress may feel obliged to legislate and President Trump may be thanked in future for having exposed the Constitution in such a manner. Edmund Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) is often quoted that a state without the “means of some change is without the means of its conservation.”
I conclude that the way in which to re-engage confidence in the democratic process and to demonstrate that “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” (in Abraham Lincoln’s wonderful encapsulation) is superior to other forms of government is for it to be constantly renewed and made relevant to modern needs and technological advances: it must be evolutionary. With the capacity for electronic voting we have the ability to make popular engagement even more effective with local polls, citizens’ assemblies as well as modernising and encouraging public participation in the process of government. The only question is whether those who cherish democracy have the political will to grasp the necessary changes.Moreover, one size does not fit all: each form of democracy must be tailored to meet the societal and tribal composition of society, its geography, history and evolution so that in some cases there may well be a hybrid solution which may look strange to other democracies. I end with a ray of hope: the Economist Intelligence Unit’s recently released Democracy Index 2025 (which evaluates the democratic health of 167 countries and territories, providing a globally recognised benchmark that directly links the quality of governance to operational risk) sets out that the state of democracy worldwide is showing signs of stabilisation. After eight years of consecutive declines, their data suggests that the democratic recession has plateaued with almost 75% of countries either improving or maintaining their scores this year. Yet, this top-line stability masks intense underlying volatility. From “Gen Z” uprisings demanding government accountability across Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa to the stark erosion of civil liberties and government functioning in the US, political risk remains a dominant, unpredictable force. As the introduction to the report states “as Aristotle observed, political stability relies on strong institutions to endure. While political participation is a positive sign, it is important to remember that participation without reform is combustible.” At least some qualified reason to be cheerful!