How many men does it take to run a country?
Just for a moment, let’s forget goals, ideals and assessments of how democratic a country is or should be. Instead, let’s turn things on their head and ask how many men does it really take to run a country. How many do we actually need? Not that many. Ten, maybe?
It’s always wise to have one man controlling the military, because you really ought to have them on your side. It’s also smart to have one controlling the police and — not least — the intelligence service, because he who has the lowdown on people and the means to leverage it has a lot of power in his hands. Then you need someone to control — as far as possible — the media and those crazy journalists. A fourth man should control the ministry of finance and the country’s purse strings. Because, obviously, you need money to grease the entire machinery of state, so a couple of businessmen who can help you skim the cream off government procurement processes are a must. You also need a couple of people to control key sections of the party, and thereby secure enough delegates to make sure you are re-elected at the next party congress, while giving a democratic gloss to the proceedings. You certainly don’t want to be a dictator, do you? At least, not an old-fashioned dictator. Eight men in addition to yourself. Maybe a couple more, maybe a couple less. But if you make sure you have enough information on them all, and at the same time pay them prodigious amounts of money (preferably with an undisclosed portion going into some convenient offshore account), you will have both carrot and stick enough to maintain control. Tell them that they should create a similar spider’s web for their own underlings. Madness, you may think. But that’s how easy it can be, and actually is in practice, in a growing number of countries in 2017.
Authoritarian regimes are on the up. According to Freedom House and the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), less than half of the world’s population live in democracies. The EIU says that in 2016 only 19 countries could be considered true democracies. Democratic erosion can be seen on all continents, and has been confirmed by multiple research establishments. Many countries are now defined as hybrid democracies or “defective democracies”.
At the same time, the authoritarian and hybrid regimes are far more elastic and pragmatic than their traditional forebears. The tools they use are also substantially broader and more flexible. On paper, there may well be human rights and democratic institutions. They hold elections, of course they do. Only geriatric dictators are stupid enough not to. Modern dictators are smarter than that. In practice, it is interesting to see how the elections are organised and what happens between each one. Because everyone wants democracy on paper. Vladimir Putin calls Russia an “independent democracy”. President Maduro underlines that Venezuela has five pillars of popular power for democracy. In Turkey, President Erdogan says democracy was strengthened by last year’s constitutional changes — which just happened to increase his own power. And President Zuma claims that the main thing threatening democracy in South Africa is white capitalism, and certainly not any allegations of corruption aimed at himself, or any criticism levelled at him by the courts or the media. And even though China does not go as far as to call its system of government democratic, they emphasise that it is a multiparty system characterised by cooperation.
Authoritarian regimes devote considerable resources to creating an illusion of democracy. They like to keep the institutions that were there before. Most of them have functioning courts. Censorship is common in many countries. The killing and imprisonment of political opponents is not unusual in countries like Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Turkey, Egypt and many more.
Human rights activists and bloggers are obviously at risk. The criminalisation of protest is not uncommon. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and the Rainbow Revolution before that, convinced leaders in former Soviet states and other authoritarian regimes that civil society must be held in check. In Russia, more than ten laws curtail the activities of civil society organisations, and over 30 laws restrict the very existence of NGOs. Vague laws give a ruling administration greater flexibility to squash civil society. To be accused of being a foreign agent or an agent of foreign imperialism is not uncommon, either. According to Freedom House, 12 countries had banned civil society organisations from receiving support from abroad and 49 others had severe restrictions on such links.
But we who live in democratic countries must also remain vigilant. Firstly, because personality cults and populism are on the rise here, too. Secondly, because it is not unusual for authoritarian regimes to act bullishly abroad, particularly with their neighbours. That is always a cheap way of whipping up domestic support. Thirdly, because authoritarian systems are gradually gaining popularity and influence outside their national borders. Populistic parties with Putin-friendly platforms are being listened to and winning growing support in countries like the Netherlands, France and Germany. And the idea that democracy may not suit all countries is spreading like wildfire in a number of African nations — often with reference to China’s growth and development.
At the start of this year, Freedom House said we should keep a sharp eye on South Africa, where there was in real danger that democracy would be undermined. The outcome of the ruling ANC’s national congress in December would put pressure on the democratic process, in the view of Freedom House. But the undermining of the country’s democratic pillars has been going on for a long time, and can be read as the step-by-step realisation of the question “How many men does it take to run a country?”. Some people think things have worked this way for years. Some think that this is how the president has survived one corruption scandal and vote of no confidence after another. Some think that this constitutes the greatest threat to democracy in South Africa. And that it has been going on like this for a long time is documented in the book The President’s Keepers, whose publication Zuma is currently trying to halt.
The so-called third democratic wave that swirled around the world in the early 1990s made many of us believe that the world would only become more and more democratic. But that’s not how it turned out. Many of those heading authoritarian regimes are the former leaders of liberation movements, who came to power by fighting for the freedom and equality they themselves are now helping to undermine. And such person-centred regimes can more easily develop in places previously riven by conflict, where those concerned have a policing and intelligence capability at their beck and call, and where political parties and government institutions are weak to start with.
Indeed, some of those in charge of such regimes come precisely from the military or intelligence services. It’s no longer democracy they are fighting for, but alternative ideas rooted in nationalism and the notional desirability of strong-man rule. It is no accident that the question is: how many men does it takes to run a country? The majority of these person-centred systems of government are controlled by men. And the answer is really very simple. Not many at all.
