A version of this article was originally published in Greek newspaper Kathimerini on 27 February 2022.
According to the latest annual report by the Economist Intelligence Unit, the state of democracy in the world deteriorated last year. The report assesses 167 countries based on 60 unique indicators subdivided into five broad themes: electoral process and political pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, democratic political culture, and civil liberties. According to the report, only 64 countries in the world today have “some form of democracy” and less than half of the world’s population (45.7%) lives in them. Of the 64 countries, only 21 are classified as “full” liberal democracies and these account for 6.4% of the world’s population. And if we isolate the top ten democracies in the world according to the report, we find that the percentage of people lucky enough to live in one of them is dishearteningly small – just 1.2% of the world’s population.
Just 1.2% of the global population lives in one of the world’s top ten democracies.
Which are the top ten countries offering the most democratic, healthiest, and prosperous life to their citizens? The list is dominated by European countries, seven to be specific, of which three (Denmark, Ireland, Finland) belong to the euro area. All the Nordic countries are in the top ten, with one of them (Norway) sitting at the top of the list. None of the European countries has a population surpassing ten million. Interestingly enough, even if we sum the populations of the five Nordic countries, their total does not exceed 27 million. Of the non-European countries in the top ten, only two have populations of more than 25 million citizens. Exactly half of the ten countries are islands (Australia, Ireland, Iceland, New Zealand, Iceland, Taiwan) with relatively little cultural heterogeneity or social tensions. The same applies to Switzerland, which, because of its historical neutrality, and despite its location in the middle of Europe, is an island of political stability. The common feature of the world’s ten best democracies, according to The Economist, is that they are found in countries that are either small in population, insular or, quite simply, combine both characteristics. Finally, it is noteworthy that almost all countries in the top ten score high on gender equality, as shown by individual indicators such as women’s participation in the workforce, pay equality, childcare and representation in senior positions.
Obviously, democracies differ dramatically from countries that are not democratic. Denmark, for example, is nothing like China, nor Australia like Yemen. Equally obvious, however, are the differences between “full” democracies and those that the Economist report describes as “flawed” democracies. If pluralist Denmark and totalitarian China differ in the type of political systems they have, Denmark differs from democratic India in their degree of pluralism. To put it another way, each democracy is distinct. But while the “good” democracies are similar to each other, each “bad” democracy is bad in its own way. The issue is important as about 30% of the world’s population lives among the world’s largest democracies, which are (in order of population size) India, the United States, Indonesia, Brazil, and Japan. Of these five, only Japan ranks among countries with full liberal democracies. In the other cases, we are dealing with defective democracies that have either stalled or are regressing.
Each democracy is distinct. But while the “good” democracies are similar to each other, each “bad” democracy is bad in its own way.
India may be the world’s largest democracy, but under the leadership of Narendra Modi, leader of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, it has become an authoritarian system that systematically violates civil and individual freedoms, especially of Muslims who make up almost a fifth of the country’s population. In the Brazil of populist Jair Bolsonaro, corruption and violent crime are rampant, often against journalists, political activists, homosexuals and other minority social groups. Indonesia, despite the impressive democratic steps taken since the fall of an authoritarian regime in 1998, today faces systemic corruption, strong social discrimination, and frequent instances of repressive state violence. Perhaps worse is the case of the United States, a deeply polarized country with large, almost unbridgeable, divisions in its social body. Its political system suffers from so many distortions that it seems impossible to repair, while the liberal values of the past have lost much of their former glory. Rapidly increasing inequality has come hand in hand with a growing culture of violence that every now and then erupts in diverse incidents ranging from repeatedly murderous gun violence to the recent mob invasion of the Capitol by a mob of Trumpists.
Small size can be an advantage when it comes to running a democracy that feels secure, but it becomes a disadvantage when national unity and national security are threatened. It is no coincidence that, except for Ireland, all the European countries in the top ten have strong xenophobic parties whose main aim is to restrict immigration to them and, in some cases, to leave the European Union. In addition to the fear of uncontrolled immigration, several small democratic countries also feel the fear of neighboring non-democratic countries. Finland (and to a lesser extent Sweden) can rightly boast of the quality of its political system, but the threat of Russia has a decisive influence on both the actions of its political staff and the democratic culture of the country. Taiwan, an island of 24 million people just 160 kilometers off the coast of China and a world leader in advanced chip manufacturing, is justifiably proud of both its democracy and the technology it is developing. However, due to historic tensions with China, and the latter’s growing rivalry with the United States, it is seen as one of the most dangerous places in the world to live.
Be that as it may, it seems that in the new world order (or, depending on the outcome, disorder), the political clash will not only be between democratic and nondemocratic political systems; it will also be good democracies and bad democracies.
