Democracy > elections

Last updated on: December 6, 2007 at 10:33 am by Fred Clark

Democracy > elections 2007-12-06T10:33:48-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Shortly before an invading army replaced his regime with anarchy, Saddam Hussein was “re-elected” as the leader of Iraq. This transparent sham of an election was Saddam’s attempt to demonstrate to the rest of the world his legitimacy as a duly elected, democratic ruler. The Iraqi despot — whose surreal campaign featured as its theme song Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You”* — won with something like 96 percent of the vote.

No one inside or outside of Iraq was fooled by this bizarre charade. No one regarded this as a free election. Saddam’s margin of victory served only as a measure of the man’s delusion. He apparently realized that 100 percent of the vote would make it too obvious that the game was rigged, so for the sake of “plausibility” he decreed a margin of dissent — yet his ego couldn’t bear for that margin to be larger than 4 percent. Old-school authoritarian rulers like Saddam just weren’t very good at creating an impression of democratic legitimacy.

Jonathan A. Becker, in “Putin and the Dawn of the New Authoritarians,” explores how Russian President Vladimir Putin and other leaders have become much savvier at wielding unchecked, unaccountable power while still maintaining the charade of legitimacy:

The New Authoritarians represent the antithesis of the revolutionary spirit that swept the world in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the Berlin Wall fell and communism collapsed.

While they pay lip service to democratic values, and assert a rhetorical commitment to freedom of expression in domestic and international forums, these leaders undermine democracy and openness by using administrative resources and the selective application of laws to perpetuate their rule. …

When issues of importance are at stake, particularly elections, they assert substantial control over the media and use television as a blunt instrument to prop up the regime and discredit its opponents.

To ensure control of television, the New Authoritarians use a variety of legal and regulatory mechanisms to ensure that stations are in the hands of the state or state sympathizers. Broadcast licenses can be revoked, the tax police can be called in and owners can suddenly face criminal proceedings for their business practices.

Television dominance is coupled with other actions designed to limit the activities of journalists. Journalists can find themselves the object of criminal defamation suits, even for relatively minor criticism of the regime. Their access to government officials can be restricted. They can be arrested — or worse.

Media restrictions are often supplemented by other actions that limit public communication. Opposition protests and rallies are banned or limited. Leaders can be detained or beaten. When all else fails, the New Authoritarians will resort to voting fraud. …

Even where leaders’ desire to retain power outweighs their commitment to the values they publicly espouse, they still wish to bask in the glow of democratic bona fides.

They would also prefer to use more subtle forms of electoral manipulation that the control of broadcast media can afford them — rather than resorting to outright fraud or violence.

This raises a host of interesting points, the most important of which may be that genuine democracy involves much more than majority rule through elections. Without a bill of rights guaranteeing equality under the law for everyone, including minorities, elections are meaningless.

By putting elections ahead of these rights — freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free assembly, free association, religious freedom, due process, etc. — the Bush administration’s efforts at “promoting democracy” have done more harm than good. Groups like Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders emphasize the universality of such rights as a prerequisite for democratic elections — a much more promising approach in the long run.

It’s also impossible — or at least incredible — for the Bush administration to promote such rights abroad while undermining them at home. Bush’s embrace of warrantless search and seizure, his declaration that due process and habeas corpus are conditional, and his employment of torture are all both morally wrong and illegal. But these things also subvert America’s ability to promote democracy abroad.

Subvert isn’t strong enough a word there. These things pervert America’s efforts at democracy promotion — they twist it into something else, something opposite. They turn America’s nominal support for democracy into a buttress for authoritarians new and old.

Becker’s analysis also provides a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-style checklist for authoritarianism. Here are the characteristics Becker provides for authoritarian regimes:

Asserts substantial control over the media
Uses television as a blunt instrument to prop up the regime and discredit its opponents
Ensures that television stations are in the hands of the state or state sympathizers
Subjects journalists to defamation suits for even minor criticism of the regime
Restricts journalists’ access to government officials
Arrests journalists
Bans or limits opposition protests or rallies
Detains and beats opposition leaders
Maintains power through electoral fraud
Invokes threats to national security as a part of their general press crackdowns
Censors the Internet

The DSM might say that a regime that presents seven of these 11 symptoms could be diagnosed as suffering from a severe case of authoritarian disorder. Presenting only five symptoms might be a case of moderate authoritarianism. In either case, the resulting clinically significant distress or impairment of democratic liberties would require immediate treatment.

Becker’s key insight, I think, is that the New Authoritarians’ “subtle forms of electoral manipulation” can be much more effective than the blunt instruments employed by old-school authoritarians like Saddam Hussein or the thugs now controlling Burma. At the same time, these subtler tactics provide a veneer of plausibility to their claims of democratic legitimacy. The arrest, detention and beating of journalists and opposition leaders isn’t really necessary anymore. Nor is Saddam-style election rigging. If you can control what the electorate sees on TV, you’ll only need the slightest tweaking of electoral outcomes at the ballot box to maintain unchecked and unending power.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* Yes, really. Bittersweet memories. Considering that along with reports that Osama bin Laden regards Whitney as The Greatest Love of All makes me wonder if Ms. Houston might, somehow, be the key to peace in the Middle East.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

December 6, 2007

Thursday flamewar open thread

Next Post

December 7, 2007 Mitt vs. atheists, martyrs

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How long did judges rule over Israel?

Select your answer to see how you score.

350 years 300 years 400 years 250 years