Summit of democracies

When President Biden announced early this year that he would be hosting a Summit of Democracies on Dec. 9 and 10, I had really high hopes. Now, on the eve of the summit, as I write this column I hardly see any international media coverage. So far the summit has failed to ignite any desire or passion for countries and organizations to find ways to stop the growth of authoritarianism in the world and slow the decline of democracies.

The summit is a virtual summit that “aims to renew democracy at home and confront autocracies abroad.” The three themes are defending against authoritarianism, addressing and fighting corruption and advancing respect for human rights.

More than 100 states accepted the invitation. The most notable countries who were not invited were China, Russia and North Korea. Deciding whom to invite was the first major problem for the United States. Limiting the list to those who were truly democratic would certainly anger some US allies who like to still call themselves democratic.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace analyzed the first 77 who were invited. According to their study, 31 invitees are actually only “partly free.” There were three countries who were totally “not free.” According to the Carnegie Report, there were eight countries that are so low on the democracy ranking that their invitations are questionable. These countries are Angola, Congo, Iraq, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Serbia and Zambia. There were four other countries who are seen as backsliding due to heightened levels of autocratization or big declines in freedom of expression over the past ten years. These include Brazil, India, the Philippines and Poland. According to Carnegie, there were political reasons for some of the invited. For example, the invitation to the Philippines was partly seen as the need to counterbalance Chinese influence.

The good thing is that some close allies of the United States who are clearly autocratic were not invited. These include Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Kuwait. Personally, I believe Israel should not have been included in the list of democracies since it does not give most of its Arab citizens the right to vote.

James Goldgier of the Brookings Institute warned that democracy alone will not dictate which nations will be worth working with. Ideology and interests do not always align. He writes:

“Democracies often have divergent interests. Democracies and autocracies can have convergent ones. Fellow democracies are frequently economic and geopolitical competitors, and often have different ideas how to manage the threats posed by authoritarian states.”

There are also issues that democratic and authoritarian states should work on together. These issues include climate change, fighting this pandemic and working to reduce nuclear proliferation.

However, it is clear that democracy needs to be protected. In the last two to three decades, there has been a worldwide resurgence of authoritarianism. Democratic campaigns that once seemed promising have been beaten back. Hong Kong has, in the meantime, lost the fight for democracy in spite of the near unanimity of its people in the struggle. Myanmar lost any democratic gains after the military reimposed its authoritarian control. Yascha Mounk wrote:

“Autocrats long focused on survival are now on the offensive. The coming decades will feature a long and drawn out contest between democracy and dictatorship.

“The outcome of that contest is not foreordained. To prevail, the United States and its democratic allies need to understand the stakes in more imaginative and courageous ways than they have in the past. “

Democracies have a dilemma. They may have to work with countries that are not totally free in order to confront aggressive authoritarian states. This means that instead of promoting democracy, democratic countries may have to be satisfied with simply “protecting” democracies.

One example of a possible dilemma is the Philippines which will have a presidential election next year. One candidate for president is Marcos Jr., the son of the former dictator Ferdinand Marcos. His campaign so far is denying that his father was a dictator and there are indications he wants to return to his father’s era. This will pose a dilemma for the United States who lent assistance in restoring democracy to the Philippines.

I also think that the economic hardships brought on by the pandemic – especially among the poor – have encouraged autocrats to claim that the way of authoritarianism is a more efficient way to solve the economic issues of poverty and inequality.

The greatest challenge for those who believe in democracy is to show the ordinary people that democracy can resolve the terrible wealth inequality that exists in society. Unfortunately, most economists and the business sector are still obsessed with economic growth and GDP increase. I advise them to read Pope Francis, who has repeatedly said that the concept of “trickle down” has not worked, does not work and will never work.

The challenge to defend and protect democracy is going to mean a serious struggle for believers in true democracy.

A session of President Biden’s Democracy Summit on Day Zero (Dec. 8) on Media Freedom and Sustainability includes our very own Sheila Coronel on the same panel as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Sheila is a professor of investigative journalism in Columbia University and concurrently director of the Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism. There will be recorded messages from Nobel laureates Dmitry Muratov and Maria Ressa.

The panel will highlight “the importance of media safety, freedom and sustainability in the health and vitality of democratic societies.”

*      *      *

Last 2021 writing date via Zoom: Young Writers’ Hangout: Dec. 11, 2-3 p.m. with Neni SR Cruz

Contact [email protected]. 0945.2273216

Email: [email protected]