“Is Democracy in Peril?” Thomas Carothers, Thomas Melia and Panel of Regional Specialists Speak at George Washington University’s "Future of Democracy Initiative"
5 April 2007
Printer Friendly

The Elliot School of International Affairs and George Washington University hosted a conference on March 29th, “Is Democracy in Peril? A global and Regional Assessment,” as a part of the university’s “Future of Democracy Initiative.”  The conference was broken down into three sections: an introduction by Thomas Melia of Freedom House, four regional analyses by Elliot School professors and a conclusion by Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 

Thomas Melia referenced the Freedom House 2007 publication of Freedom in the World, which reported a global “freedom stagnation.”  Melia indicated that this was generally being caused by erosion of press freedom, pervasive corruption, absence of rule of law, and the push back against democracy by authoritarians. 

The four speaker panel was opened by Elliot School Director of Middle East Studies Nathan Brown, who argued that freedom has grown over the past few decades in the region.  The “Freedom Agenda” of President Bush had led to incremental political openings, but the reversal of U.S. policy following the Hamas election, to which Brown says the U.S. reacted like a “deer caught in headlights,” has taken the pressure of authoritarians.  Brown argued for the strengthening of political society and the inclusiveness of Islamic parties as ways to overcome roadblocks to democracy. 

Henry Hale characterized Post-Soviet Eurasia as a system of “cyclical corruption” dominated by overpowering executives and patronage networks.  He said that we need to examine the region more to see whether the “color revolutions” were truly democratic breakthroughs, or if they were just competitions for clientelistic influence.

Cynthia McClintok gave a positive report of the state of democracy in Latin America.  She said despite the “leftist” turn in recent elections, it has been determined that these elections were generally free and fair and recorded high voter turn outs.  McClintok divided the regimes between the “vegetarian left” (Brazil, Chile, Uruguay) and the “carnivore left” (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua).  The difference is the extremities in which they seek social justice, where the “vegetarians” play within the free market democracy sphere, and the “carnivores” do not.

Gina Lambright reported that democracy in Africa was dealing with the ills of “recycled elites,” and governmental denial of coordination goods that facilitate strong opposition.  Despite this, elections have become institutionalized on the continent, despite their generally low quality.  According to Lambright, Africans are beginning to expect the right to vote, and high turnout in elections reflects this.

Thomas Carothers blamed the “freedom stagnation” on “extraordinary” authoritarian regimes that were able to adapt and avoid the “third wave of democracy.”  The rise of “another league” or alternate models to liberal democracy has contributed to the stagnation.  China and Russia present a “strong hand” model that represents the first challenge to the democratic model in 57 years.  Also a factor is the absensence of an “exemplar” model of democracy, as human rights violations and an unpopular Bush presidency have damaged the American model, as the handling of Islamic immigrants has hurt the European image. 

Carothers suggested that the United States re-establish itself as an “exemplar model” by ridding itself of its image of abusers of human rights.  According to Carothers the U.S. also needs to back away from incorporating democracy promotion programs into its security agenda.  He argues that the current administration has brought USAID under the umbrella of the State Department, which he believes is a mistake.  Carothers says that we need to separate politics from democracy promotion, insisting that it needs to be seen as an issue of values, not strategy.