How Democracy Backslides: Tracing the Pathway in Six Countries

• In Event: Poster Session: Democracy & Autocracy

Abstract

This paper explores the processes of democratic backsliding in six countries, namely Bangladesh, Bolivia, Mali, Turkey, Ukraine and Zambia. The sample represent four different regions of the world and are very dissimilar in terms of history, culture, religion, democratic structure, institutional capacity and characteristics of population. The Freedom House (FH), the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) and the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) have been documenting a persistent decline of democracy in these countries in the past decade. Using Nancy Bermeo’s definition that backsliding means ‘the state-led debilitation or elimination of the political institutions sustaining an existing democracy’, we examined trajectories in these cases through exploration of political and constitutional histories. This paper makes three interrelated arguments. First, while we acknowledge the incremental nature of the backsliding processes, we argue that there are specific milestones which accentuates the processes and provides legitimate cover to the actions of the incumbent. We have identified these specific watershed moments drawing on the political history of the respective countries. They are: 2011 for Bangladesh, 2009 for Bolivia, 2012 for Mali, 2007 for Turkey, 2010 for Ukraine and 2009 for Zambia. Consistent downward movement of overall democratic scores are evident from these points onward and the overall situation are yet to return to the pre-milepost level.
Second, drawing on this finding, we interrogate the Levitsky & Ziblatt (2018)’s three stage model of the backsliding – attacking referees, targeting opponents, and changing the rules of the game. Based on this interrogation, we argue that data from these countries demonstrate a pattern of changes in the constitution as the first step. Thus, the rule of the game is the first significant change in the process rather than attacking the referees - the judicial system, law enforcement bodies, intelligence, tax and regulatory agencies. The specific changes and how they set the course are discussed in the paper. Interestingly, major changes in the constitutions of all these cases have made mainly on four areas – rule of law, judiciary and legislative, election and civil liberties, and freedom of expression and association.
The third finding of the paper is that media become the second casualty of the backsliding processes. Draconian measures, both legal and extra-legal, are taken by the incumbent to stifle any criticisms against the government by the media. Various measures taken by the sample regimes include implementing laws with vague definition of crimes and serious punitive measure, creating new media laws and regulatory bodies, establishing state-led media outlets, banning the telecast of electronic and print media, and harassing the editors and journalists.
The paper’s contributions are two-fold. Frist, the institutional pathways and the trajectories of democratic backsliding can be traced, thus helping us to identify the potential vulnerable cases. We have found that democratic backsliders, irrespective of differences in geography, history, culture and population, follow a specific pattern in the process of democratic reversal which unfolds with changing the rules of the game. Second, the institutional changes which contributes to democratic backsliding process are difficult to be reversed.

Authors

• Ali Riaz, Illinois State University

• MD SOHEL RANA, Indiana University Bloomington