Rash: Year of elections doesn’t ensure an era of strong democracies

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of commentary online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The long lines on election days across countries and continents suggest dynamic democracies. But despite the calendar aligning for a record-setting number of people worldwide eligible to vote this year, democracy itself is actually imperiled.

That’s the clear conclusion from Freedom House, which said in its annual “Freedom in the World” report that “flawed elections and armed conflicts contributed to the 18th year of democratic decline.” The “breadth and depth of the deterioration was extensive,” the think tank reported, adding that “political rights and civil liberties were diminished in 52 countries, while only 21 countries saw improvements.”

That analysis was amplified in a similarly grim report from the Economist Intelligence Unit, which starkly stated that “conflict and polarization drive a new low for global democracy.”

This dire data corresponds with, and may have been caused by, a commensurate retreat in media freedom, as evidenced by Reporters Without Borders’ annual World Press Freedom Index, which warned that “press freedom around the world is being threatened by the very people who should be its guarantors — political authorities.”

Indeed, if democracy were a stock, “it would have suffered something of a price correction over the last 20 years,” said Richard Haass, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Haass, a veteran envoy who served Republican and Democratic administrations, was speaking via video on Tuesday night at a Minnesota Peace Initiative forum called “The World Votes: Global Democracy at a Crossroads.” The event, held in Minneapolis at Norway House (fitting, considering Norway held the top spot in the World Press Freedom Index and along with fellow Scandinavian nations is ranked as the world’s most free by Freedom House), drew a capacity crowd with many more online to hear from Haass, me and three other panelists: Chad Vickery, vice president of global strategy and technical leadership at the International Foundation for Electoral Systems; Aram Gavoor, a former Justice Department official and current professor at the George Washington University Law School; and Thomas Hanson, diplomat-in-residence at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

Haass cited several factors for his clear-eyed diagnosis of democracy, including technological transformations that have ushered in an unsettled media landscape. “We live in one of the odd moments in history where there’s never been greater access to information and never been greater access to disinformation,” Haass said, adding that citizens don’t know if information is “accurate, fully accurate, partially accurate or essentially inaccurate.”

That’s to autocrats’ advantage, asserted Gavoor, who said that this country’s competitors “have sought to exploit the U.S. democratic system for quite some time.” The “age of technology, especially with social media,” he said, has “taken on a dramatically different dimension.” Mentioned as additional direct democratic threats were distributed denial-of-service attacks and “strategic foreign mis- and disinformation campaigns that oftentimes are quite opportunistic and play on various doubts in the minds of Americans.”

Gavoor gave this good news, however: “The federal government has actually gotten quite adept and capable with regard to identifying foreign mis- and disinformation to the extent that there are significant bodies that exist to combat these things,” like the National Security Council and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

But the threat to democracy from domestic disinformation is an even greater challenge, Gavoor said. And, he added, wherever the disinformation originates, the objective is similar. “Keep in mind that the end goal is not just to disrupt an American election or to cause a particular candidate to be advantaged or not. The end goal is to undermine the entire system of American governance and the faith in American democracy and perhaps greater softening of the resolve to maintain a democracy.”

Disinformation is just one component corroding democratic norms within some countries, said Vickery. “We’ve learned how autocracy works: First, you have to win an election by popular vote, usually running against the elites in your country.” Next, he said, “you change the election laws, you game the system to make sure you can win again and not be challenged again.”

“But then the third thing is you need to harass civil society in many places” — places like Norway House, he said. “After that, you need to pack the courts with judges who are going to support you, and then you want to enrich your cronies with corruption and then you buy up newspapers and television and make this propaganda machine.”

If the democracy-tending attendees at Norway House were any indication, that’s not about to happen here. Indeed, the citizen engagement on display was considered a model by moderator Janet Dolan, who co-created the Minnesota Peace Initiative with her husband, William Moore.

The other panelists concurred on Dolan’s admiration, and that along with a free press, such civic involvement should be inviolate in this country and the others it tries to inspire toward a democratic form of government. But the beacon that former Foreign Service officers like Hanson projected and protected on behalf of this country may not shine as bright in recent years. “I think many people in the world perceive that the American model of democracy is less compelling than it was, and that makes our work globally much more challenging,” said Hanson, who added, “and we’re beginning to see other narratives of contestation on democracy and on elections.”

Hanson, who will hold his highly anticipated and attended Global Minnesota “2025 U.S. Foreign Policy Update” on Jan. 23, began by saying he was “struck by the dichotomy between an agreed ‘recession of democracy’ and an unprecedented number of elections” this year. “I think that shows how elections nowadays are being used to legitimize variants of democracy.” Many “managed democracies around the world hold elections if they predetermine who can participate. This is the case in Russia. This is the case in Pakistan.”

And, he added, “I hate to say it, but at the local level in our own country our two parties go to great lengths to prevent any third-party candidate from participating, which is a minor example of what I’m describing.”

According to Vickery, those democracies, however managed or free and fair, have had results that can be categorized as “change-of-status elections” like in the U.S., U.K., South Africa, North Macedonia, Botswana, Senegal and others. Next are elections “solidifying power,” such as in Indonesia and Mexico. And more hopefully, there are examples of “bounce-back” democracies that through elections or civic action have gone “in the right direction,” including Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

While not as many will queue to choose their leaders next year, Vickery noted that there will be 102 elections in 68 nations affecting 1.2 billion citizens worldwide. So for many, 2025 will truly be an election year, even if globally it isn’t quite a year of elections like 2024.

But democracy “is about more than voting,” said Haass. “We the citizens, we the people, have the obligation, and I would argue the self-interest, to exercise our democratic rights, to stay informed, to stay involved, and to make sure that those who are entrusted with outsized political power comport themselves and act consistent with the law, and act consistent with the norms that make our democracy what it is.”

What it is can be credited in no small part to the kind of civil, civic engagement from groups like the Minnesota Peace Initiative and the involved, inspiring citizens attending Tuesday’s event.