The Threat to Democracy is not Autocracy: It is the Failure to Govern Fairly

The catastrophically brief tenure of Liz Truss as Prime Minister of the sixth largest economy in the
world has shattered the illusion that democracy serves as the be all end all of societal organisation
on the planet. The decisions she made set off a chain of turmoil which triggered a domestic financial
crisis affecting ordinary British citizens and provoked a damning international reaction which further
plunged the British economy into an all-out meltdown.

But what was even more striking was the fact that she stumbled her way into the corridors of power
not on the remit of the British electorate. Rather, she was chosen by a narrow clique of Conservative
Party members – representing just 0.26% of the overall population.

How could this have happened in a so-called democracy?

The unfortunate reality of today is that democracies do not seem to function in the idealistic way
they are often exported to countries outside the western global political sphere.

This has paved the way for the rise of alternative forms of governments. Nevertheless, it does not
take too long for the western world to then race to the erroneous conclusion that such systems are
inherently “authoritarian” regardless of how well that government performs.

This is a blatant act of denial to the simple fact that a democratic government is just one of many
types of governments out there. The outright refusal to accept this has led many in the west to
assume that there is some global hankering for autocracies, but this is far from the sentiment on the
ground.

The reality is that people all over the world are being let down by so called democracies and are
therefore in pursuit of other forms of governance systems. This is an indication of a deeper malaise
of which more democracy is not the solution – this points to a failure to govern fairly.

Broadly, a government’s role is to manage resources in a way which allows its people to lead
dignified lives. The approach taken to that end varies from country to country. When a government
fails at its formal function, it calls into disrepute the approach which it has adopted.

In the United States, the government has for decades failed to provide what even its allied economic
counterparts have – access to basic healthcare, gun control measures and a decent social safety net,
just to name a few. It is a deeply divided country which has seen the rise of extremist tendencies,
bordering on fascism, and a widening inequality gap.

This culminated in the eventual election of Donald Trump who many observers were quick to brand
as an “authoritarian” leader for his ways. This unwittingly mischaracterises the issue as a struggle
between democracy and authoritarianism. Even years after Trump’s electoral defeat, this conflation
remains. Joe Biden in his public address last September spoke of the “battle for the soul of the
nation” where he chastised Trump’s brand of authoritarian politics as a threat to “the foundations of
the republic”.

Critics are missing the point of Trump’s rise. His politics are a direct response to decades of neglect
of ordinary American society which have thus far been led to believe that democracy would deliver
unto them the promise of a dignified, free life.

Theoretically it might. After all, all forms of societal organisation attempt to pursue a perfect state.
But such idealism is aspirational at best.
Therefore, it makes little to no sense to measure the effectiveness of governance by its ideology. It
should rightly be measured by its outcomes.

And the bitter reality is that time and time again, so called democratic governments have used
democracy to mask their failures in providing for their people.

America’s inability to adequately address its domestic issues have often been blamed on gridlock in
Congress – a symptom of a democratic system built on a culture of political lobbying, transactional
politics and disregard for the welfare of the poorest on the basis of purported individual freedoms.

The war in Ukraine is another striking example of the failure of democratic outcomes. Europe’s hard-
line, anti-authoritarianism stance fails to take into account geopolitical realities which will ultimately
affect its citizens. The solution to this does not involve making huge concessions to Russia, but it
definitely requires Europe assuming more responsibility for its security affairs instead of abdicating it
to the United States whose priorities are clearly not the people of Europe.

Therefore, it is downright appalling to then see the very governments who have their own houses in
a democratic shamble, assume a sanctimonious high ground when it comes to prodding
“authoritarian regimes”.

Most recently, many in the western world reacted with glee when images of a posters accusing Xi
Jinping to be a dictator was strung across a bridge in China made international headlines. The
sentiment then was that finally, someone was standing up to the notorious, authoritarian Xi regime.
The images inspired similar solidarity protests the world over.

But all of this to what end?

China’s brand of governance may leave a bitter taste in the mouths of some, but this does not
negate the outcomes it has produced. On the socioeconomic front, Xi’s China has seen 76 million
uplifted from extreme poverty, a 66% increase in the disposable income of urban households and an
82% for rural households between 2013 and 2022.

In terms of addressing global climate issues, China has also taken the lead. The World Bank recently
reported that it is slowly but surely transitioning to a low carbon economy. Under Xi’s leadership,
China has also included ecological wellbeing and its advancement into its constitution,
demonstrating a long-term commitment to address climate change – while the US labours over short
term executive actions which can be reversed with each changing administration.

It is astounding that western media is overtly concerned with Xi’s consolidation of power which
comes with his unprecedented third term in office. Once again, this is not a comment on the merit of
such actions. In fact, the practice of power consolidation is not foreign to any governing system be.

What this indicate is an inability to accept democracy for its flaws and address its root failures in
governing society. If China’s actions have repercussions to the West’s status quo position in the
world, it is clear that Western leaders have no interest in improving their brand of governing to
better serve their people – preferring instead to malignantly tear down one which is exceeding
theirs.

Even a relatively benign nation geopolitically has been subject to such treatment. Singapore,
arguably the poster boy for transparent and effective governance was deliberately snubbed from the
110-nation democracy summit convened by the US last year. Curiously, nations which have been
called out for their human rights abuse by the US such as Brazil and Pakistan were invited, throwing
into question America’s unreliable barometer for its own set of morals and ethics.
Today’s post-western world is one borne out of a celebration of diverse values and principles. In an
attempt to coalesce ideas and develop fresh, nuanced ways of governing societies, we must look
critically at democracy, assess its flaws and most importantly not arrogantly exclude positives from
other forms of governance.

The crises we face today are not a result of undemocratic governing; it is not a result of authoritarian
iron rule. It is a symptom of callous indifference of leaders who don the democratic mantle, then
miserably fail at their responsibilities to their people. But instead of assuming blame, they continue
to undeservedly wag their fingers at a made-up authoritarian straw man.

It is a cop out; it is simply pathetic.