Human rights

Authoritarianism Persists Around the World, But Not Because of an American 'Crisis of Confidence'

Making sense of the latest Freedom House report.


Freedom House's annual report came out this week, and it's pretty glum. Here's how the organization's announcement of its findings begins:

A new report! Here! Take one!

The state of freedom declined for the eighth consecutive year in 2013, according to Freedom in the World 2014, Freedom House's annual country-by-country report on global political rights and civil liberties.

Particularly notable were developments in Egypt, which endured across-the-board reversals in its democratic institutions following a military coup. There were also serious setbacks to democratic rights in other large, politically influential countries, including Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Venezuela, and Indonesia.

The report itself notes that "the overall level of regression was not severe," with 40 countries getting freer and 54 getting more authoritarian. Freedom House's list of which countries are "free," "partly free," or "not free" hasn't changed much: The number of countries in the "free" category declined by two, and the numbers in the other categories went up by one apiece. The number of electoral democracies actually increased by four. So while there's plenty of bad news here, the situation isn't as dire as that lede suggests.

The political scientist Jay Ulfelder, former director of the Political Instability Task Force, makes an important point:

The dictator plots his next move.
Walt Disney Productions

Freedom House looks at the data from a different angle than I do, calling out the fact that the number of declines in scores on its Political Rights or Civil Liberties indices outstripped the number of gains for the eighth year in a row. This is factually true, but I think it's also important to note that many of those declines are occurring in countries in the former Soviet Union and the Middle East that we already regard as authoritarian. In other words, this eight-year trend is not primarily the result of more and more democracies slipping into authoritarianism; instead, it's more that many existing autocracies keep tightening the screws.

I don't think it's accidental that this eight-year trend has coincided with two waves of popular uprisings in the very regions where those erosions are most pronounced—the so-called Color Revolutions and Arab Awakening. A lot of that slippage has come from autocrats made anxious by democratic ferment in their own and neighboring societies. If we notice that correlation and allow ourselves to think longer term, I think there's actually cause to be optimistic that these erosions will not hold indefinitely, at least not across the board.

One more comment. While the report's country-by-country data are useful as usual, I think its introductory essay offers a misleading idea of what's needed for freedom to grow. Its author complains not just about the decline of civil liberties and political rights in various parts of the globe, but about a "crisis of confidence" in the U.S.:

America. (If only!)
Clifford Harper

The democratic world was experiencing a period of self-absorption much like today's when Freedom House launched Freedom in the World during the 1970s. Once it had overcome its crisis of confidence, America helped propel a historic surge of democratization in parts of the world where self-government was almost unknown. A similar era of change could be in the offing, and some democracies—including a number in Europe—have done their best to play a constructive role. But if there is no reassertion of American leadership, we could well find ourselves at some future time deploring lost opportunities rather than celebrating a major breakthrough for freedom.

Let's be clear: The great force that "helped propel" a global shift from authoritarianism was the end of the Cold War, a change that certainly had a lot to do with American actions but is rather different from the sort of "leadership" that Freedom House seems to be asking for here. The idea that the oppressed of the world need outsiders to "lead" them to freedom is condescending nonsense, a point I made the last time I wrote about the notion that liberty is in retreat around the globe. That time I was responding to a New Republic essay by Joshua Kurlantzick:

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."

As you read all this, some questions may occur to you. Did India's support for the Burmese dissidents actually accomplish anything? (I can't help noticing that the junta is still in power.) What was the real-world record of Bush's drive for democracy abroad, and might that record have something to do with that revival of American isolationism? And when countries that served as Cold War battlefields are wary of inflicting a similar fate on other nations, isn't it possible that they have a point?

Generally speaking, movements against dictatorships are more likely to succeed when they're rooted in civic action from below instead of intervention from outside. The U.S. certainly hasn't acquitted itself very well in the Arab Spring: It's been reluctant to cut off aid to countries like Bahrain even as they crack down harshly on peaceful protesters, and when it did intervene forcefully—in Libya—it's hard to argue convincingly that the big picture improved. One of the most distressing changes in [the 2010] Freedom House survey was the demotion of Mexico from "free" to "partly free," the result of a wave of violence in which "government institutions have failed to protect ordinary citizens, journalists, and elected officials from organized crime." That violence is a direct result of the War on Drugs, and one of the chief reasons Mexico is fighting that war is pressure from its neighbor to the north. If Washington really wants to help the spread of freedom around the world, perhaps it should spend less time budgeting for "democracy promotion" and more time thinking about where it's standing in the way.

NEXT: Hollande Meets the Pope

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that the decline in growth and overall wealth that the U.S. largely generates worldwide plays a significant role in all of this.

  2. The idea that the oppressed of the world need outsiders to “lead” them to freedom is condescending nonsense,

    The people who actually brought down the Eastern block disagree. When the free world refuses to stand up for its values, oppressive governments use that as vindication and a propaganda tool to demoralize their internal opponents.

    The thing is that these horrible governments don’t walk around and claim they are evil like something out of a Bond film. No, they claim they are good. They claim they are acting in their people’s best interests. And when the rest of the world refuses to call them out for their actions, their own people are left demoralized. Every single Eastern Block dissident says that Reagan calling the USSR the “evil empire” made a difference. You wouldn’t have known it in the US though. Every right thinking person in America thought it was horrible that he would say such a thing.

    Why should people stand up and risk their lives for freedom when the people who have it constantly boot lick and excuse governments who oppress their people? If we as free people are not even willing to say freedom is better than oppression, why should those without freedom risk their lives to get it?

    1. Our past success was the best advertisement for our economic and political systems. People were more affluent here than in the rest of the world, and people here seemed happier and healthier in general. And we had an open society where all of that was visible, along with our flaws.

      As we move away from freedom, free markets, and the rest, that advertisement for a liberal society becomes a less compelling one.

      1. Yep. “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.” 8-(

    2. There is a lot of space in between licking the boots of authoritarians and actively involving yourself in leading their victims to freedom.

      1. And that space is confident rhetoric and actions to exclude such countries from the international community.

        1. I think that the extent to which exclusion will help depends a lot on who you are dealing with. With something like the USSR, yes, exclude them as you can and make them run themselves into the ground.

  3. Interesting that throughout the article “freedom and democracy” are juxtaposed, as if one is contingent on the other. What to make of Peter Thiel’s conclusion that freedom and democracy are incompatible?

    1. Democracies certainly intrude on people’s liberty, but dictatorships tend to do it more. You have exceptions like Hong Kong under British rule, but they’re pretty rare.

  4. Hey Jesse, do you know who did that “I used to be into politics” drawing that I love so much? I’m very curious.

    1. It’s from a Clifford Harper comic. I meant to include a credit?thanks for the reminder.

      1. That was cool. It was like a really depressing Fat Freddy comic without any jokes and in which the starving hippies ate Fat Freddy’s cat.

        1. You should be a professional blurb-writer, Warty.

      2. …What the fuck?

  5. I fully expect the USSA to become yellow on that map, soon. It should probably be yellow now. Are there really any countries that deserve the green?

    1. Switzerland? Monaco? Liechtenstein? Luxembourg? Uruguay?

      1. So if I move to Uruguay I am effectively in Libertopia? I has a skeptical.

  6. While oppressed peoples do not need the free world to lead them to freedom, some active assistance would certainly help. While we’ll never know what would have happened to the Soviet empire had the West taken a hands off approach to its internal affairs, the West’s continual stressing of the importance of human rights led to the Eastern Bloc countries signing up to the Helsinki Accords, which was used, among other things, to great effect by dissidents to bring down some very oppressive regimes. Western meddling and leadership on human rights very likely brought forward by decades the process of the disintegration of the Soviet empire and the freeing of millions of people in Eastern Europe. And perhaps without that pressure, the Soviet leaders would have had enough time to reform their economy just enough to maintain their oppression for decades, if not indefinitely (like China). Western leadership on human rights also led indirectly to the spread of freedom in Africa as the Soviet government’s efforts to reform the economy were largely dependent on Western aid, which would have been less forthcoming, if not completely shut off, had the Soviets continued their global troublemaking. Without Soviet aid, African dictators, at least those supported by the Soviets, had little hope of maintaining their oppressive regimes for long, though some, like in Angola, found alternative sources of funding in the mining/oil bonanza that was unleashed starting from the late-90s.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.