Democracy in crisis? A study of various dimensions and sources of support for democracy

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1650
• Date: 01 February 2017
• Published date: 01 February 2017

EDITORIAL

Democracy in crisis? A study of various dimensions and sources

of support for democracy

1|INTRODUCTION

This special issue of Journal of Public Affairs (coedited by my colleague

Cindy Steenekamp from Stellenbosch University and myself) raises the

specter of democracy in crisis across the world. I think it is, and we may

well still be unaware of just how serious the predicament will become.

This was not the case when we started this collaborative project

between Stellenbosch University and University of Gothenburg back

in 2012. With a grant from the Marcus and Marianne Wallenberg

Foundation, the team at Stellenbosch could conduct Round 6 of the

World Values Survey (WVS) in South Africa, and together, we mapped

out a collaborative research project on democracy based on WVS data.

Some worrying patterns had emerged, especially among younger peo-

ple aged 18–29 years old. On the dictatorship, question “What would

you think about having a strong leader who does not have to bother

with parliament and elections,”almost 30% of the young people in

Sweden said in 2011 that it would be “good”or “very good.”This rep-

resented a doubling of support for dictatorship compared to 2000. In

the United States, 48% supported dictatorship in this cohort. Spain,

Estland, and Uruguay showed similar trends and levels. What was

going on? So we decided to focus on the question if democracy is in

crisis.

We are all too familiar with what has happened since then. Many

of us who support democracy are afraid, and those not yet so worried

should perhaps be. When this issue is in print, Donald Trump has been

inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States. His campaign

was belittered with antidemocratic statements and promises including

threats to jail political opponents if he won; intimidation of critical

media and suggestions that there is a need to constrain them legally;

expressions of admiration for dictators such as Vladimir Putin; and

promises to register particular religious groups and to use torture as

routine practice during interrogations. The list could go on. Trump’s

well‐documented and frequent use of lies in public discussions,

belittering of opponents, and stirring of racist sentiments are also

directly a negation of democratic ideals of reasoned debate based on

facts and with respect to counterarguments and political contestants.

Trump is, however sadly, not alone. Across Europe, we find illib-

eral, and sometimes directly antidemocratic, views widely articulated

and sometimes made into policy. The most dramatic change took place

in Turkey where Recep T. Erdogan who was democratically elected in

2002 has turned the country into an outright dictatorship. Hungary’s

Victor Orbán is also a democratically elected leader who now officially

pronouncing it an “illiberal democracy.”Poland and the Czech Republic

are following down the same trail. In France, the far‐right leader

Marine Le Pen is expected to make big inroads in the presidential elec-

tions later this year, perhaps even win. Her compatriot in the

Netherlands, Geert Wilder and his Freedom Party, is also growing

stronger, just like the far right is doing in a series of long‐standing

democracies, even in northern Europe.

It is true that democracy has taken root in many parts of the world

during the past 4 decades. Successive waves of democratisation

throughout the 20th century have resulted in democracy becoming

the predominant form of government today: Using V‐Dem’s (n.d.)

new unique database, Lindberg (2016) shows that in 116 out of the

173 countries, their codes are minimally democratic. Similarly, 125

out of the 196 countries in the world were at least electoral democra-

cies, according to Freedom House (n.d.). According to The Economist

Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index,

1

more than half of the world lives

under a democracy of some form. However, only 15% countries enjoy

“full democracy,”whereas 32.3% are rated as “flawed democracies,”

22.2% are categorised as “hybrid regimes,”and almost a third (30.5%)

are “authoritarian regimes.”As could be expected, the developed

OECD countries dominate among full democracies with Scandinavian

countries (Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark) usually occupying

the top spots of any democratic indices. Flawed democracies, on the

other hand, are concentrated in Latin America, Eastern Europe, sub‐

Saharan Africa and, to a lesser extent, in Asia. Nevertheless, more cit-

izens than ever before live in countries governed by representatives

elected by at least minimally democratic procedures.

Yet the quality of these democracies differs considerably putting

question marks to the legitimacy of democracy as a legitimate system

of government in many newer democracies. When the system does

not manage to produce non‐corrupt, dependable, and constructive

governance resulting in better lives for people, democracy runs the risk

of loosing its legitimacy.

Democracy is also being challenged from the outside by new non-

democratic alternatives in the form of a renewed nationalism in coun-

tries like Belarus and Russia, as well as by religious extremism. Threats

to democratic values and processes also come from within clothed in

neo‐nationalist, right wing parties and movements across Europe, and

1

The Democracy Index analyzes 165 independent countries and two territories

to show the status of regional and worldwide democracy. Each nation is catego-

rized across gradient levels of regimes: full democracies, flawed democracies,

hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes.

DOI 10.1002/pa.1650

J Public Affairs 2017;17:e1650.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1650

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of2