Democracies
Around the
Globe
The State of Democracy
Around the World
The march toward democracy is substantial, but problems remain.
by David Carroll
Democracy is a powerful idea that embodies key elements such as free elections, the rule of law, and individual freedoms. In this article David Carroll
of The Carter Center analyzes the most recent wave of countries moving to
democratic government, identifies problems, and assesses future prospects.
F
ollowing the Second World War, and especially after the end of the
Cold War in 1989-90, democracy has become firmly established as the only
legitimate form of government and the preeminent political ideology.
Further, it is now widely recognized that the only acceptable means to
establish democratic government is by holding genuinely free and open elections. As
a result, countries around the globe are keen to defend their democratic credentials,
and where these are lacking, leaders are quick to declare that achieving democracy
is their ultimate goal.
Several important forces account for the strength of democracy’s historic
surge. Two key factors are the gradual erosion of state sovereignty and the emergence of international norms of democratic government and human rights. The
ratification of the 1948 United Nations (UN) Universal Declaration of Human
Rights played a key role in establishing the idea that individual human rights,
including peoples’ right to select their leaders, are legitimate concerns of the
international community.
Another important factor was the end of Cold War. While democracy has long
been a rhetorical goal of the United States, power politics and economic interests
have often overshadowed democracy. After the Cold War the United States and
other major powers have been able to support democracy with greater interest
and consistency.
In spite of the impressive march of democracy and freedom, the global state
of democracy has begun to stagnate. The number of countries recognized as
democracies has stopped growing, and experts are now focusing on the myriad
problems facing democracy. Many states are mired in seemingly endless conflict
(e.g., Congo, Sudan, and areas of West Africa). Where conflict has ended, states
“The number of
electoral democracies
increased from
39 to 117 between
1974 and 1995.”
Dr. David Carroll ([email protected]) directs The Carter Center’s Democracy Program,
which works globally to strengthen democratic institutions and processes. He is the author of
several articles and book chapters on issues of democratization and development. The Carter
Center was founded in 1982 by former President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalyn, to
advance peace and health worldwide; for more information, go to www.cartercenter.org.
1
Insights on Law & Society 5.3
•
Spring
•
© 2005 American Bar Association
are sometimes unable to establish
durable democratic institutions (e.g.,
Angola, Liberia, and Haiti). Autocrats
or corrupt elites continue to defy popular demands for democratic government in many countries; in others,
fledging democratic leaders struggle to
achieve economic development and
welfare, but with limited success. Globally, the picture is one of important
progress, but with serious concerns
about the long-term consolidation and
sustainability of democracy.
Democracy: What Is It?
The idea of democracy has a long history stretching back to ancient Greece.
In its modern form, there are three core
principles: political and civil freedom,
popular control of government, and
political equality of individual citizens
in these rights and powers. Beyond
these core principles, several additional
dimensions are central to democratic
government. These include the rule of
law, popular participation, political
competition, and responsiveness and
accountability of governments to citizens (Diamond and Morlino, 2004).
In its minimalist form, democracy is
an electoral struggle for votes and requires
universal suffrage, regular competitive
and fair elections, multiple parties, and
basic minimum freedoms (speech, press,
assembly) needed for meaningful competition and participation. Countries
meeting this minimalist definition are
generally referred to as “electoral democracies.” Many electoral democracies,
however, are rightly criticized as “illiberal” for a variety of reasons. Some lack
strong constitutional protections for
individual and group rights. Others
have corrupt or authoritarian leaders
(albeit having won competitive elections), or weak and ineffective political
parties, judiciaries, or legislatures.
In contrast, “liberal democracies”
are countries where individual and
group liberties are well protected, and
where there are relatively autonomous
spheres of civil society and private life
and a system of checks and balances
among key political institutions.
The Cresting of the “Third Wave”
Analysts tracking the number of countries that have undergone “democratic
transitions,” i.e., movement from a
nondemocratic authoritarian form of
government toward a democratic one,
have identified three major waves since
the early 1800s (Huntington, 1991).
The “third wave” started in 1974 but
ebbed around the mid-1990s. The wave
was initially sparked by democratic
transitions in Portugal, Spain and Greece,
and then spread to Latin America in
the 1980s as military regimes fell one
after another. In the late 1980s and the
1990s, the wave hit Eastern Europe and
the former Soviet Union, where former
communist states established democratic governments after the collapse of
communism. Similarly, in Africa a series
of undemocratic regimes with singleparty or authoritarian leaders initiated
political reforms leading to multiparty
elections in the 1990s.
An important impulse supporting the
third wave was the growing acceptance
of international norms of democracy
and human rights, including the norm
of democratic elections as the basis for
legitimate government. A watershed event
was the international community’s
authorization of the U.S. intervention
in Haiti in 1994 to restore a democratic
leader to power.
By the early 1990s, several major
regional intergovernmental organizations, including the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE), the European Union (EU),
the Organization for American States
(OAS), the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), and others,
had formalized commitments to foster
A veiled Iraqi woman casts her vote in
her homeland’s landmark elections at the
Iraqi embassy in Cairo.
democratic government among their
members and to promote democracy in
their foreign relations. On a parallel
track, the UN, individual states, and a
growing number of nongovernmental
organizations (NGO) now provide a range
of technical support to assist countries’
democratization efforts. International
election observers have played an important role, providing an independent
assessment of the credibility of elections.
According to Freedom House, a NGO
that monitors political rights and civil
liberties around the world, the number
of electoral democracies increased from
39 to 117 during the third wave between
1974 and 1995. Since 1995, however,
the wave has crested and the number of
electoral democracies has hovered around
117 to 120. While some countries have
become more democratic and held free
and competitive elections, others have
suffered reversals.
Problems of Democracy,
1995–2004
Many countries now face a series of
problems that block the consolidation
of democracy and threaten to reverse prior
gains. The most important problems
are economic crises, poor government
performance, corruption, crime, and
political instability. In Latin America,
2
Insights on Law & Society 5.3
•
Spring
•
© 2005 American Bar Association
these problems have led to lagging public
confidence in democracy and several
interrupted presidencies (e.g., Ecuador,
Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay) or
other disruptions of constitutional order.
Many African countries are plagued with
low economic development and the
persistence of civil conflict. While several
Asian countries have strengthened
democracy, including Indonesia and
Taiwan, many others retain strong
authoritarian systems. China has allowed
only modest reform at local levels,
focusing instead on managing the economy. Russia, on the other hand, has
undergone a significant democratic
reversal, with President Putin systematically weakening key institutions.
In the Middle East, there has been
almost no progress toward democratic
reform. The key exceptions are
Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian
territories. Afghanistan and Iraq held
elections following U.S. invasions and
heavy international tutelage, but in
both cases the long-run prospects for
democracy are less clear. Elections in the
Palestinian territories, which demonstrated broad participation and popular
confidence in the democratic process,
could prove a more attractive example
for the Arab world.
Prospects for the Future
In the last 10 years, the optimism surrounding the third wave has given way
to a sober, yet realistic assessment of the
challenges facing democratization. It is
now clear that democratization is an
uneven, nonlinear process that involves
a complicated set of factors in a wide
range of settings. These include national
culture, the level of economic development, the form of political institutions, the
nature of contesting political actors, and
socioeconomic forces of globalization.
While there is broad agreement
about the critical factors involved, there is
debate about the best prescription for
achieving democracy. The key questions
involve the speed and timing of democratic change and elections, the role of
political actors and institutions, and the
sequencing of economic development
and democratization.
There is widespread consensus that
democracy is much more than simply
holding elections, and also that elections are nonetheless critical aspects of
democracy that provide key tests of
how well political institutions perform.
But some experts believe elections are
overemphasized and that many countries
are pushed to hold elections and accept
democracy too fast, resulting in the
growth of illiberal democracies where
elected authoritarian leaders trample
on the rights of citizens (Zakaria, 2003).
A similar argument is made about postconflict settings, where elections have
sometimes been held before warring
parties were fully disarmed or before a
broad political consensus was achieved
about the future direction of the country.
Other analysts stress the impact of
different political and constitutional
systems (e.g., parliamentary vs. presidential systems) on democracy or the
possible need to achieve a threshold of
economic development in order to establish or sustain democracy. Nonetheless,
it is difficult to ignore popular demands
for democracy. Populations that strive
for democratic rule cannot be expected
F O R
For Further Reading
Carothers, Thomas. Critical Mission:
Essays on Democracy Promotion. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, 2004.
Diamond, Larry, and Leonardo Morlino. “The Quality of Democracy.”
Journal of Democracy (October 2004).
Freedom House. Freedom in the World
2005. www.freedomhouse.org/research/
survey2005.htm
Huntington, Samuel P. The Third Wave.
Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma Press, 1991.
Zakaria, Fareed. The Future of Freedom:
Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad.
New York: W. W. Norton, 2003.
to wait for decades until strong constitutions and developed economies are
established.
While there is not a single fixed path
for genuine democratization nor many
absolute preconditions, it is clear that a
number of factors are helpful, including
modest economic development. The
most important ingredient is popular
demand for democratic reforms. Overall,
it is important to recognize that no
democracy is perfect, and that all countries
have room for improvement, including the
United States and other established
democracies.
D I S C U S S I O N
Why did so many countries around the globe move to a democratic government
after 1974? What historical events contributed to this?
What are the differences between an “electoral democracy” and a “liberal
democracy”? Why are these differences significant?
What kinds of problems face democracies today?
3
Insights on Law & Society 5.3
•
Spring
•
© 2005 American Bar Association