How authoritarian regimes threaten democracies

War in Ukraine, glo­bal war­ming, the Covid-19 pan­de­mic… Recent events are making demo­cra­tic regimes more fra­gile. As such, they are cur­rent­ly in a “per­ilous situa­tion”, accor­ding to Domi­nique Rey­nié, Direc­tor Gene­ral of the Foun­da­tion for Poli­ti­cal Inno­va­tion, which conduc­ted a sur­vey on demo­cra­cy in 55 coun­tries. Des­pite a clear attach­ment of citi­zens to this model, “demo­cra­tic states must withs­tand inter­nal crises and deli­cate change that can des­ta­bi­lise their foun­da­tions”, explains the poli­ti­cal scientist.

You have stu­died demo­cra­cy in 55 coun­tries. How would you define this regime ? 

Demo­cra­cy is a sys­tem based on a prin­ciple and a mecha­nism. The prin­ciple is popu­lar sove­rei­gn­ty, and the mecha­nism is the appoint­ment of gover­nors by the gover­ned. In the his­to­ry of demo­cra­cy there are two main lines of thought. The first leads to the view that the only full demo­cra­cy is assem­bly demo­cra­cy, where the people meet, deli­be­rate, and decide without a repre­sen­ta­tive. The second is repre­sen­ta­tive govern­ment, elec­ted through com­pe­ti­tive elec­tions, which is what we expe­rience today in libe­ral democracies. 

There are strong poli­ti­cal issues at stake in the way demo­cra­cy is defi­ned and the way the term is appro­pria­ted. Chi­na des­cribes itself as a “socia­list demo­cra­cy”, for what purpose ? 

Like almost all notions used in poli­tics, defi­ni­tions are ridd­led with conflicts of inter­pre­ta­tion. Chi­na speaks of a socia­list or Chi­nese way of demo­cra­cy, which is an alter­na­tive concept, because there is a glo­bal bat­tle to see which power can lead the world and from which model. Like the “socia­list demo­cra­cies” in the past, it is a way of saying that there is ano­ther form than Wes­tern – and more par­ti­cu­lar­ly, Ame­ri­can – demo­cra­cy and the­re­fore a way of chal­len­ging the world order. 

Has the notion of demo­cra­cy evol­ved over the course of his­to­ry ? Are we now wit­nes­sing new attempts to rede­fine democracy ? 

Demo­cra­cy has never stop­ped evol­ving, even as a repre­sen­ta­tive govern­ment, whe­ther it be through the exten­sion of the right to vote, the mul­ti­pli­ca­tion of elec­tions… Today, we can see seve­ral pos­sible ele­ments of evo­lu­tion. First­ly, the shift from our libe­ral plu­ra­list regimes to “illi­be­ral” regimes, such as that of Vik­tor Orbán in Hun­ga­ry. Illi­be­ra­lism is a demo­cra­cy with elec­tions, but without res­pect for the rule of law (ques­tio­ning the inde­pen­dence of judges and the media, voting sys­tem favou­ring the re-elec­tion of incum­bents, etc.). 

Nowa­days, there is also the dis­course of a “beyond demo­cra­cy” based on the impe­ra­tive to pre­serve the envi­ron­ment. Since citi­zens are sus­pec­ted of voting as consu­mers, it is ima­gi­ned that elec­to­ral demo­cra­cy will be aban­do­ned and repla­ced, for example, by a sys­tem of dra­wing lots. 

A third ele­ment of evo­lu­tion may be a tech­no­phile approach. At the begin­ning of the twen­ty-first cen­tu­ry, digi­ta­li­sa­tion rekind­led the hope of a pos­sible return to direct demo­cra­cy, and the birth of the web igni­ted the dream of inter­net voting. It is less pre­valent today because other issues are now at stake : hacking, espio­nage, inequa­li­ties, vote buying, pres­sure on voters’ homes…

In your stu­dy, you men­tion the cur­rent “per­ilous” situa­tion of demo­cra­cies. What is the state of the regime in the world today ? Is the model real­ly being cal­led into ques­tion in an unpre­ce­den­ted way, even within demo­cra­tic countries ? 

Demo­cra­cy is a fra­gile regime by its very nature. Cohe­sion requires the sup­port or consent of the gover­ned. We are wit­nes­sing his­to­ric phases of social trans­for­ma­tion. Since Chi­na’s entry into the WTO, glo­ba­li­sa­tion has pro­vi­ded emer­ging powers with consi­de­rable resources. We must the­re­fore deal with coun­tries that are not demo­cra­cies, which is not new but that are pros­pe­rous, which is unpre­ce­den­ted. Whil­st the USSR was not pros­pe­rous, Chi­na is a tota­li­ta­rian coun­try capable of rapid enrich­ment, and of a crea­tive intel­li­gence that no lon­ger needs to be demons­tra­ted. We are the­re­fore in a dif­ferent his­to­ri­cal phase, where demo­cra­cies must com­pete with non-demo­cra­tic sys­tems that are just as good or even bet­ter – depen­ding on the comparison. 

We must deal with coun­tries that are not demo­cra­cies, which is not new, but that are pros­pe­rous, which is unheard of.

Fur­ther­more, demo­cra­cies face mul­tiple inter­nal crises. These regimes are expo­sed to natu­ral but com­pli­ca­ted migra­to­ry move­ments, invol­ving cultu­ral uphea­vals that can des­ta­bi­lise them. These states remain pros­pe­rous, but they are facing com­plex changes. Popu­la­tions have aged, social sys­tems are beco­ming more expen­sive. The para­me­ters of some sys­tems, such as pen­sions, are being chan­ged at the risk of pro­vo­king major protests.

Des­pite these issues that are com­mon to libe­ral demo­cra­cies, the coun­tries of nor­thern Europe seem to stand out because of the posi­tive per­cep­tion of their sys­tems and ins­ti­tu­tions. Can you explain this ?

Nor­thern demo­cra­cies are more consen­sual : they spend less and hold their elites more accoun­table. They also have less pro­mi­sing and the­re­fore fewer disap­poin­ting sys­tems, based on par­lia­men­ta­ry coa­li­tions, and not around a lea­der elec­ted by direct uni­ver­sal suf­frage, which is sup­po­sed to solve many of our pro­blems. These are some of the ele­ments of unders­tan­ding the dif­fe­rences. One could also men­tion other eco­no­mic or cultu­ral aspects, i.e. expla­na­tions that involve Pro­tes­tan­tism or the place of trade, for example.

Autho­ri­ta­rian coun­tries are acti­ve­ly trying to over­throw demo­cra­tic regimes. This is not new, but tech­no­lo­gy plays an impor­tant role today. In what way and with what tools ? 

These non-demo­cra­tic coun­tries, enri­ched by glo­ba­li­sa­tion, are much more power­ful, and more confi­dent. They clear­ly aim to redis­tri­bute power on a glo­bal scale to the bene­fit of emer­ging coun­tries, which are gene­ral­ly autho­ri­ta­rian. The action is car­ried out through indus­try and trade, but also by influen­cing the socie­ties them­selves. Moreo­ver, rela­tions are asym­me­tri­cal, since the Rus­sian and Chi­nese sys­tems are clo­sed. Conver­se­ly, we are open socie­ties, and the­re­fore easier to pene­trate : the Rus­sians, for example, are trying to influence various elec­tions around the world. As for the mobile appli­ca­tion Tik­Tok, it is clear­ly a Chi­nese tool for pene­tra­ting the Wes­tern public space. Tech­no­lo­gy can thus inject divi­sion, chaos, and various move­ments, as well as bring up data, and extract large masses of infor­ma­tion from it.

Will the war in Ukraine change the per­cep­tion of demo­cra­cy much ? 

In the face of Rus­sian aggres­sion, we could have had a col­lapse of demo­cra­cies refu­sing to lose gas and oil. Yet, this was not the case. Demo­cra­cies pro­ved more resi­lient than we thought : they were able to coor­di­nate, to face up to the situa­tion and to turn around. NATO is expan­ding. Indeed, there is now a clear demo­cra­ti­sa­tion pro­cess in Bela­rus and Ukraine. Rus­sia is also sho­wing this evo­lu­tion, with young Rus­sians who are gra­duates and who aspire to more plu­ra­lism, a freer press, honest elec­tions… This is what, I think, has cau­sed Putin to be alar­med, to the point of wan­ting to break up this eman­ci­pa­ted neigh­bour, com­mit­ted to the Wes­tern path of libe­ral demo­cra­cy and NATO.

How do you see demo­cra­cy evol­ving ? What are the issues that could cause demo­cra­tic sys­tems to fal­ter in the future ? 

My the­sis is that demo­cra­tic regimes would not withs­tand a sus­tai­ned expe­rience of mate­ria­list regres­sion. Demo­cra­cy has been esta­bli­shed in per­iods of pro­gress. If the pro­cess is par­tial­ly rever­sed, with more expen­sive edu­ca­tion and health care, later reti­re­ment, etc., I don’t know how demo­cra­cy will fare. Does this mean that we have mour­ned the pas­sing of an era of plen­ty ? It is not certain. 

Demo­cra­tic regimes would not withs­tand a las­ting expe­riment in mate­ria­list regression.

Ano­ther issue is the cli­mate ques­tion. Given what is at stake, the public poli­cies announ­ced are not there for five years but de fac­to fore­ver. I don’t see how demo­cra­cies will manage to get people to accept a form of eter­nal degrowth. How can we ask citi­zens to elec­to­ral­ly rati­fy the aban­don­ment of cer­tain sub­stan­tial bene­fits, without ever being able to veri­fy the results of their efforts or sacri­fices ? Demo­cra­cy needs short or medium-term per­for­mance. At present, attempts are being made to explain that these can no lon­ger be gua­ran­teed : this is the appea­rance of a major sys­te­mic pro­blem that threa­tens the sur­vi­val of the demo­cra­tic sys­tem, which is based on the consent of the governed.

Interview by Sirine Azouaoui

Pour aller plus loin :

« Liber­tés : L’épreuve du siècle – Une enquête pla­né­taire sur la démo­cra­tie dans 55 pays », Parue en jan­vier 2022, dis­po­nible sur le site https://​www​.fon​da​pol​.org/​e​t​u​d​e​/​l​i​b​e​r​t​e​s​-​l​e​p​r​e​u​v​e​-​d​u​-​s​i​ecle/