Democracy has long been accepted as a sacrosanct value of humanity. However, in the practice of democracy, it is the essence and intent of this value that matters. Its form and format could never be the same across the world as it has to come under the influence of respective cultures rooted largely in civilizational heritage.

Tumbling into totalism

The world has gone through a number of stages of development—be they physical, cultural or political. No single nation has ever traversed the same course of historical development as others. All nation states have their own cycles of ascendency and decline. Each has its own pace and level of development at different points in time. After all, it is a heterogeneous world.

Any country, hegemonic powers included, that seeks to impose on others its own brand of democracy based on its civilizational values and norms, is itself undemocratic in nature. This is not an altruistic deed of liberation as claimed, but a coercive move infringing upon the liberty of choice of the people on the receiving end. Worse still, if the coercive imposition of democracy is done through military means with selfish geopolitical interests in mind, this is nothing less than the “tyranny of democracy.”

No nation in the world, regardless of possible pretext, could ever play concurrent imposer, appraiser and grader of democracy. Nonetheless, in reality, the U.S. has time and again done just that.

Tool for ‘regime change’

From the “war on terror” against Afghanistan to the invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and Syria, the magnitude of humanitarian disaster created by the U.S. in the name of promoting democracy is simply appalling, and a travesty of democracy in se.

All these geopolitically motivated maneuvers by the reigning superpower share a common denominator in staging “regime change” against any administration deemed “undemocratic” or “authoritarian” by the Western yardstick.

The victimized states falling prey to such maneuvers, in most cases, would first be labeled as “pariah states” before they are subject to isolation and sanction imposed by the West in the name of “countering authoritarianism.”

People of the victimized states are virtually reduced to mere pawns to the “democratic institutions” installed by the puppeteers later. Consultation is simply a distant luxury under the illiberal coercion by the foreign interventionists. Yet this is touted as a “hallmark of democracy” so long as a multiparty electoral institution is installed after the “regime change.”

The ballot above all else?

Over the years, the international community has generally accepted the definition and norms set forth by the West. Universal suffrage and multiparty electoral institutions are deemed the cornerstone of democracy by many. But in reality, the one-size-fits-all model stands to be contested as democracy has never been homogeneous in form. Neither is it perfect or a panacea to all problems of governance.

In many countries practicing multiparty election, gerrymandering of electoral boundaries remains one of the common flaws and key concerns to be addressed. The spirit of One Person, One Vote is at stake when the demarcation of electoral boundaries is deliberately done with unjust weightage in favor of certain parties. This explains the anomalies of popular vote tally incompatible with the number of seats secured. Such representation breeds skewed democracy.

If Abraham Lincoln’s three-part phrase from his Gettysburg address, “of the people, by the people and for the people” is taken as a guide to benchmark democracy, the role and involvement of the electorate in democratic governance, by and large, are grossly limited. Their least participatory role in influencing the policy formulation does not commensurate with the desired expectations of them as “individuals charting the destiny of the nation.”

Under the electoral democracy, ballot tally decides the winners even if the voter turnout is a minority in terms of percentage. It is not uncommon in the West that there have been legislators or public office bearers elected by less than half of the eligible electorate, thus making their political representation less convincing from the perspective of democracy.

The essence of Lincoln’s quote is further eroded in the wake of electoral rigging and “money-for-ballot” bribery. This makes Western democracy vulnerable to monetary influence where plutocrats are having their say. Indeed, Western democracy is sliding down the path of decadence.

Against such a backdrop, what is left for Western democracy if the people’s aspirations are left to be suppressed by monetary interests?

Behind enemy lines

Advocates of Western democracy may find a new dose of impetus in U.S. President Joe Biden’s virtual “summit for democracy,” taking place on December 9 and 10, which promised commitments in “defending against authoritarianism; addressing and fighting corruption; promoting respect for human rights.” However, if the list of invitees to the meeting is any guide for the current U.S. criteria of benchmarking democracy, the inclusion of certain nation states would simply make the event a travesty of its intended goals.

By hosting this gathering, Biden has unabashedly divided the world into “democratic” and “authoritarian” countries. He also designated the competition, if not confrontation, between the U.S. and China as one between “liberal democracy versus authoritarianism,” a distinctive battle cry for ideological antagonism from the zero-sum perspective.

Polity and model of governance of China were deliberately made an issue of contention to camouflage its mounting “anguish of displacement” in the face of serious challenges from China. This appears pervasive in almost all key aspects of rivalry, ranging from its economic clout and technological prowess to military might on the high seas. The perceived challenge is deemed unprecedented as it, for the first time, stems from an Asian country of different civilization, ethnicity and polity since the mid-19th century.

But the fact remains that the so-called “ideological faceoff” is merely a convenient excuse to justify America’s move to vilify, insulate and isolate China—the potential challenger to the U.S. primacy. The old label of “authoritarianism” was again resurrected from the U.S. toolbox to instill fear and discord within the international community. China was thus made the perpetual poster child for “authoritarian governance,” which is deemed antithetical to democracy.

What the U.S.-led coalition might feel baffled by is that the alleged “authoritarian governance” of China has so far been enjoying overwhelming support among its people. This is no in-house publicity piece, but a finding contained in the survey report titled Understanding CCP Resilience—Chinese Opinion Survey Through Time, released in July 2020.

Its author, Edward Cunningham of the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School, narrated in his finding that “since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with the government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction.”

Statistically, the overall level of satisfaction has been overwhelming—above 90 percent, signifying the high level of trust and confidence the Chinese people have in the governance of the Communist Party of China after seven decades. This is clearly the indisputable choice of the Chinese people in selecting their desired mode of governance, albeit not in line with Western naysayer expectations.

All in all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Perhaps the level of people’s confidence in governance makes for a better measurement of how well their aspirations have been met in their own countries. This certainly appears more democracy-consistent as compared to the mere form of electoral democracy in practice.

The author is chairman of the Center for New Inclusive Asia.