Baksheesh

The Arabist has been run by freelance journalists since 2003 as a labor of love. We don't make much from ads, so please contribute to keep this site going.

Search
Subscribe

Get Arabist via email: 


Your Middle East is a digital newspaper about the Middle East for the web, iPad and iPhone.


Get Arabist contributor Ashraf Khalil's new book!

Social

The Arabist Podcast
Sponsored Links

UK City Guides        Enquira Local


For low prices on Las Vegas Show Tickets shop ShowTickets.com for your upcoming Las Vegas trip.


Graduation Dresses


The UK Web Directory Can Give You What You Need


Connecting global buyers with China suppliers — 
Made-in-China.com 


Sourcing Quality Products from Qualified Manufacturers — ECVV.com

Partners

 

Powered by Squarespace
« Sen. Leahy declares war on Fayza Aboul Naga | Main | The WINEP crusade to discredit the Egyptian revolution »
Friday
Feb032012

The thin line between democracy and autocracy

From David Runciman's essay on the European crisis, Will we be all right in the end?, in the LRB:

If elections are not the answer, then what explains the ability of the world’s leading democracies to survive crises, something which has been demonstrated time and again over the last century? My best guess is that their crucial advantage lies in being more politically flexible than the alternatives. That is, in a crisis democracies can experiment with autocracy but autocracies can’t experiment with democracy, not even in small doses. They daren’t, for fear of losing control. This is the real problem for the Chinese system. At some point, perhaps at some point quite soon, China’s leaders will face a critical situation in which they would be better off if they could find an outlet for popular dissatisfaction with the regime. But they will be extremely nervous of opening that door for fear of what lies behind it. So they will be stuck. Democracies can put democracy on hold and get away with it; if autocrats suspend their autocratic powers, they tend not to get them back.

That’s the good news for democracy. People who have announced that Europe’s current experiments with technocracy are a fundamental betrayal of democratic principles are being premature: it could work. But here’s the bad news: there is no guarantee that it will work. The conditions have to be right. The historical evidence suggests that democracies can be flexible only under certain circumstances. To start with, they must not be too poor. In countries where per capita GDP falls below a certain level (usually estimated at around US $7000), democratic experiments with emergency rule often end in disaster. It’s the temporary autocrats who don’t give power back. Political scientists take these thresholds very seriously. Above the line, democracies appear pretty much invulnerable, but below it, even safe-looking democracies might suddenly collapse into something worse. During the economic contraction of the mid-1970s per capita GDP in New Zealand fell perilously close to the cut-off point (it got down to about $10,000). It is hard to imagine what a military coup in 1970s New Zealand would have looked like. But it’s not impossible to imagine. And it’s certainly not hard to imagine what a military coup in 1970s Greece would have looked like.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>