Planet Burma

No, global freedom isn't in a free-fall.

"Around the globe, it is democratic meltdowns, not democratic revolutions, that are now the norm." Or so claims Joshua Kurlantzick, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations writing in the June 9 New Republic. From Venezuela to Russia, he argues, regimes are sliding toward autocratic rule. Polls show public opinion turning against self-government. Freedom House, which issues annual reports on the worldwide state of democracy, says we've been heading in the wrong direction for half a decade. "The other countries were supposed to change Burma," one activist tells Kurlantzick. "Now it seems like they are becoming like Burma."

It's a dramatic story, but it isn't really accurate. We aren't on the road to Planet Burma. More likely, we're witnessing freedom's growing pains.

Kurlantzick does make some valid points. Some countries have suffered setbacks in the last few years. Surveys in several places do show a middle-class disillusionment with democracy, and such results do complicate the common assumption that popular wealth inevitably leads to louder demands for popular power. Above all, he's right that we shouldn't assume increases in freedom are irreversible and unstoppable. No social trend is inevitable. You gain liberty by winning it, not by waiting for it to fall into place.

But the evidence that we're actually seeing a great reversal is pretty thin. There are at least three flaws in Kurlantzick's argument.

First: The long-term trend is still toward greater freedom. Kurlantzick calls the Arab Spring "something of a smokescreen for what is taking place in the world as a whole," claiming that Freedom House's latest survey "found that global freedom plummeted for the fifth year in a row, the longest continuous decline in nearly 40 years." If you must take that 40-year view, though, the picture looks rather rosy. Four decades ago, Latin America and Eastern Europe were dominated by totalitarian regimes. Both regions are now immensely freer.

I should note that Freedom House's current report includes the period before the Arab Spring. Freedom in Egypt is thus described as declining, thanks to repression and rigged elections that took place while Mubarak was still president. I'm as disappointed as anyone else in the illiberal measures adopted by Cairo's new government, but the country's trajectory surely looks better today than it did in the period reflected by the report. The same goes for Tunisia, which the survey describes as "not free." To an extent, then, those Freedom House ratings are a smokescreen obscuring the Arab Spring rather than the other way around.

But the bigger problem here lies in Kurlantzick's claim that freedom has "plummeted" for five years running. I'll accept Freedom House's ratings as a rough measurement of civil liberties and self-rule: You might quibble with their judgments on some specific countries, but the group gets the broad trends right. And those trends just don't show a plummet. The political scientist Jay Ulfelder, former director of the Political Instability Task Force, notes that what the Freedom House figures actually describe is "a period of major gains in the early 1990s; a period of slower gains in the late 1990s and early 2000s; and something like a plateau to minor slippage since the mid-2000s." He illustrates that with a chart showing the group's average scores over the last three decades. (In Freedom House's actual rating scale, 1 is the best possible score and 7 is the worst. Ulfelder's chart reverses that, so that higher numbers represent higher levels of liberty and democracy.)

Ulfelder's second chart shows the percentage of the world's countries, from 1989 to now, that qualify as electoral democracies. It's a big rise followed by a relatively level period, then a decline of 5 percentage points:

Neither chart depicts a plummet. What they do depict fits the historical pattern outlined in Ulfelder's 2010 book Dilemmas of Democratic Consolidation. "Other things being equal," he explains, "attempts at democracy are much more likely to fail in poorer countries than in richer ones, and they usually fail in their second, third, or even fourth election cycles—that is, between four and 20 years after they start." The rollback we've seen in the last few years has happened pretty much "where and when we would have expected it to happen," which isn't good news but isn't a catastrophe either. "If those reversals were to continue until they had reversed most or all of the post-Cold War gains, then we should be both surprised and alarmed," he concludes. "In the meantime, while we can and should care about each reversal for its own sake, we should also be careful to keep short-term shifts in proper perspective."

So the recent trend looks more like a stagnation than a substantial shrinkage. And with anti-authoritarian activists still marching in the Middle East and elsewhere, there's a reasonable chance—not a certainty, but a chance—that we're about to see another big bump in the right direction.

That leads us to the second problem with Kurlantzick's argument: The know-how for building freedom is still spreading. There are countless ways that the ongoing Arab rebellions can go awry, but they have already allowed several significant shifts to take place even in countries where the old dictatorships are clinging to power. Those states' subjects have seen just how fragile seemingly solid regimes can be. They have learned lessons in organizing, in adapting to repressive tactics, and—in places where the mechanisms of government have temporarily withdrawn—in the bottom-up administration of social functions. The protesters may or may not win, but they've made it more likely that their enemies will eventually lose.

In other words, the protesters learned a lot about the skills that get lumped together under the slogan "people power." It's worth noting that the stagnation highlighted in those Freedom House reports began around the same time a wave of people-power rebellions swept through central Asia; the governments under fire mostly fell, but the regimes that replaced them didn't turn out to be much better than before. In the short term, that's not so good. In the bigger picture, though, it's far preferable that the new bosses came into office through nonviolent mass protests rather than centralized and violent coups. The most recent Freedom House report recounts the bad news from Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and especially Ukraine (which just slipped from "free" to "partly free"), but it also notes that all three countries "have thus far escaped the authoritarian fate of practically all other non-Baltic former Soviet republics," where "transparently rigged elections, widespread censorship, leader-for-life arrangements, and thuggish security forces...define the political landscape."

Problem number three: Freedom needn't rely on foreign charity. In theory, the New Republic article is about the prospects for liberty and democracy abroad. In practice, roughly half of it is devoted to fretting about the freer countries' willingness to go on global crusades. India isn’t doing as much as it used to do for Burma's dissidents, Kurlantzick complains. And the American public is "increasingly isolationist." And while the Obama administration has "maintained significant budget levels for democracy promotion," it also "eliminated high-level positions on the National Security Council that, under Bush, had been devoted to democracy." And countries that had to deal with American and Soviet subversion during the Cold War are "uncomfortable joining any international coalition that could undermine other nations' sovereignty."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Almanian||

    MORE freedom? I don't know, Jesse. Jesse's post here suggests maybe LESS freedom...

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/06.....na-edition

    BUT I KEED, I KEED!

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Nice piece. But I wish our civil liberties weren't "plummeting," thanks to Barack "Bush was [99%] right!" Obama, the ballless as usual U.S. Congress, and the "the federal government has the right to lie" U.S. Supreme Court.

  • Otto||

    Barack "Bush was [99%] right!" Obama...

    His "Despair and Continuity" campaign slogan should have given the game away.

  • ||

    :)

  • Don't overlook.....||

    .....the wars that Commander Obama has "saved or created."

  • Jim||

    It seems to be a sad fact that most people seem to prefer order and stability to freedom, and have no problem "voting" to use force to enact their desires.

  • Res Publica Americana||

    This is why unbridled democracy is an abomination. What Americans were always intended to have, and do not, is a republican system of governance, in which any and all democratic elements of government may legislate and make policy solely within the exceptionally stringent and unbending confines of supreme law.

    But nobody has that. And the United States really isn't a republic anymore. We're approaching a painful end.

  • Brett L||

    Alt Text is obviously "Stop Resisting!"

  • ||

    It is hard to believe this when you've read Balko for 10 years or so.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I wish people would stop treating "democracy" and "freedom" as synonyms. Democracy may be the best mechanism for governance with respect to individual liberty, however, democracy without limits allows 51% of the voting population to tyrannize the 49%.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Generally speaking, if a country has democratic elections but doesn't have sufficiently strong protections for individual liberty, Freedom House will rate it as "partly free." You can quibble about how that shakes out in individual cases, but it works well enough for tracking broad trends.

  • Bill||

    Arab Spring? Ask the Christians in Egypt about the "Arab Spring".

  • Cytotoxic||

    I don't see how freedom in Georgia is in any decline. That government has institute policies very close to free-market Nirvana!

  • Jim||

    Much like our favorite vacation destination on the horn of Africa...say it with me now...

  • Predicador||

    Georgia's economic policies do not really matter, for the simple reason of lacking economy. *eg*

  • cynical||

    Electoral democracy is a failure, true enough. Those elected are not truly representative, and our system tends to reward psychopathic personality traits in politicians.

    Random selection of legislators would make more sense, as would substantially increasing the number of representatives, while decreasing the size of the executives bureaucratic administration. Random selection means that people from all walks of life can wield legislative power or the power of a presidential elector, and it also means that 51% of the people hold 51% of the power in the long run, which is much more just than majority rule.

    Because one of democracy's major anti-utilitarian traits is that everyone gets an equal voice, even on issues they neither know nor care about, it would also make sense to have some mechanism for electors to save up political capital for votes that matter more to their constituents, without having to go through any backroom deals. Perhaps grant them one vote per day, and let them save them up as they please.

  • DLM||

    Random selection of legislators would make more sense...

    It would be cheaper, less corruption, and probably wouldn't make things any worse as far as what actually is done by the government.

  • ||

    I am very skeptical towards members of CFR, since when does a member of CFR ever truly embrases liberty on both social and economical issues.

  • مزيكا||

    its very useful to me :)

  • ||

    I’ll suggest that the author may be campaigning for “richer” countries (the ones with the most massive debt) like the US, to commit more money to promote democracy globally (because it works so well here *sarcasm*). It’s ironic that the article mentions US involvement in Bahrain. According to Heritage Foundation’s 2011 Index of Economic Freedom, the US is ranked ninth and Bahrain is tenth, separated by .1 point.

    http://www.heritage.org/index/

    Economies, property rights, etc. seem like a more accurate measure of freedom than democracy.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement