.png)
Rebecca SE Tan
26 June 2022
(Sneak Peak of Article)
There are many pro-democracy arguments – it is lauded as the more accountable and moral choice and has been argued to set the precondition for world peace. However, the ugly truth is that there is no magic spell for states to turn democratic overnight. In the cases where revolutions are intended to transform the political system, is the transition worth the risk? In this post, I focus more on the problems associated with these democratic transitions, as I find that the argument for democracy is likely already better understood.
Anarchy and Scarcity
While we may celebrate the Arab Spring in its fight for democracy, it illuminated the fact that a state’s collapse creates a fertile ground for civil wars. Overthrowing a government removes central authority, along with its laws and institutions. Just like ‘The Forever Purge’, individuals become free from legal consequences, creating an extremely threatening atmosphere.
With the fabric of social trust torn apart, individuals may begin seeking protection through more primitive group identities, such as via ethnic, religious, or tribal lines. This ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality is volatile because bad blood, skirmishes or even miscommunication can set off a ticking time bomb and result in a full-blown civil war. For example, while we celebrate the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime, the fall of the Libyan state leaves much to be desired. Even today, a whole decade after, Libya is still defined by its ideological clashes and tribal rivalry. In the same vein, while the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was once commended as the more democratic choice, it brought about chaos, terrorism and factionalism.
As we know, civil wars are extremely destructive. Most directly, it brings about devastating losses of human life – by 2016, Syria was estimated to have lost 400,000 lives. War also ravages the social and economic well-being of its victims. Political leaders may find themselves tied down by opportunistic militants, creating additional hurdles for law, order, and welfare. For example, Libya’s government could barely pay its civil servants when militia rebels took over most of their oil ports in 2013. Similarly, the civil war in Yemen eliminated 600,000 jobs and gave rise to a poverty percentage of at least 80%.
Worse still, such scarcity may further breed conflict. A state’s failure to provide may ripen the seeds for radicalisation. For example, while the 2018 attack on the port of Al Hudayah was targeted at the Houthi rebels smuggling arms, it also it also blockaded food imports for innocent Yemenis and starved nearly 16 million people. Hunger, desperation, and blame may then set in place a vicious cycle of instability.
All’s Well (May Not) End Well
If we could guarantee that these ‘short-term’ suffering would lead to long-term gains, democratic transitions may be less contentious. However, is the post-conflict environment truly conducive to democratic institutions or culture? Is it really possible to “work together, politically and economically, with the people who killed your parents, siblings, children, friends, or lovers?”
While history has shown that warring populations can indeed construct effective new societies, there are plenty of counterexamples as well. Particularly, civil wars tend to produce uneven power relations if it ends in a decisive military victory by either the rebels or the government. On the one hand, if the government was the clear winner, they may be tempted to use their institutions to enforce greater coercion. Power-sharing institutions may be decried as a potential empowerment apparatus for rebel factions. On the other hand, if the rebels had been the ones to topple the government, their strong rejection of the past regime creates little incentive to placate previous elites. Instead of opting for fair ways to share power, they may choose to reward their own supporters while systematically excluding others. The backdrop of war and the desire to retain power can burden efforts toward democracy.
An additional obstacle is the presence of ethnoreligious faultlines in the civil war. Under such conditions, It is incredibly challenging to reach a negotiation agreement. Even if a democratic system does emerge from the conflict, they are difficult to sustain because the resultant party systems tend to exacerbate existing ethnoreligious tensions. With ethnic minorities excluded from decision-making processes, they may choose to look for a voice outside the system instead.
Discussion
The question of whether democratic transitions are worth the risk implicitly implies that democracy is a better system. Even withstanding that assumption, there is so much more to know – how much better is democracy? Are there proven ways to increase the chance of sustained democracies? What was it like before the revolution? While these questions require much more research and contextualisation, I hope that this post at least elucidates the idea that democratic transitions are more than a theoretical comparison between the pros and cons of different political systems. Rather, the transformation itself is destructive and risky, as it may not guarantee the intended outcome. At the same time, however, successes such as the American Revolutionary War speaks for themselves, and I am not closed to the idea that democracy may require several attempts.
What do you guys think? Are transitions into democracy still worth the risk? What other factors would you like to consider before making that decision?
Author's note: Click on the "Democracy" tag at the bottom for related articles!
