The word “democracy” has long since become a contemporary buzzword. Every politician is an honest democrat as long as they are in power. When their opponent is in power, democracy suddenly becomes at least imperfect, and in extreme cases, it may slide towards dictatorship, although nowadays it would be more accurate to say “towards authoritarianism”.

Politicians who more or less effectively seek to return to power, which the voters want somewhat less, like to take the name of the “democratic camp”, thereby placing their competitors in the role of opponents of democracy. Dictators love to organize elections in which they achieve overwhelming dominance in various ways, and then explain to anyone who will listen that their power comes from the people.

There are countries where one party has ruled for more than half a century, and everyone around is satisfied. There are countries where brutally suppressed riots regularly occur, yet their leaders are always the first to teach others how to govern well and democratically. There are international organizations – model democracies – in which opposition to a decision, which would seem to be common in a democracy, is considered a betrayal of it.

I deliberately do not use the names of countries and politicians, because everyone can conclude it for themselves, and this list is only to show how much the word “democracy” has lost its meaning in the contemporary world, which – paradoxically! – is still recognized by the majority as carrying positive conotations. Calling something democratic is probably perceived positively by the majority because it gives a sense of participation. Even when democratically made decisions are not the most appropriate, they seem more “ours” than decisions that may be objectively better but imposed by the will of one person.

Once again, paradoxically, all democracy enthusiasts are subject in their lives to numerous decisions made by technocrats or financiers, not to mention bureaucrats, but as long as they can replace the people who “govern” once in a while, all of this seems acceptable to them. In some inexplicable way, in democratic systems, the actions of these “-crats” are mentally separated (not necessarily entirely, but mostly) from the nominal governing actions, whereas in authoritarian systems, they merge with them.

In this way, during the times of the communist Poland (PRL), everything related to the authorities was described as the actions of the “commies” and “them”, even if it was just the impolite behavior of a postal clerk. When the PRL became history, we struggled for a long time to abandon this way of thinking that not everything is the responsibility of the prime minister and the president. However, at the beginning, every local conflict resulted in the ritual demand for at least one minister to visit the conflicted community.

I apologize for this digression, but it seems to me that going back to the times when our thinking about the functioning of democracy was evolving is a good exercise to realise how complicated this matter is in other parts of the world and how fluid the concept of democracy and participation in decision-making is in human consciousness.

Campaign icon

Meanwhile, the realm of high politics is entering this world of perceptions and behaviors. During his election campaign against Donald Trump, US President Joe Biden decided to make the fight for democracy the icon of his presidency. This was perfectly understandable, as Trump was accused of many behaviors that were contrary to democracy, and even if some of these accusations were unfounded, the idea of hitting him where it hurts most was politically very powerful.

Then came the disputes about the fairness of the elections and the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, which further put the issue of democracy-functioning on the agenda. Democrats then began grilling the former president with accusations of involvement, or at least encouragement, in a plot to overthrow democracy, which to a lesser or greater extent continues to this day, periodically turning into accusing the entire Republican Party of being a gathering of democracy’s enemies.

The power of repulsion

However, Biden went further and the opposition democracy/authoritarianism emerged as the main axis of conflict in the world. In this way, the idea of an international conference called the Summit for Democracy was born, which took place for the first time in December 2021, and for the second time in the past week. The conference was supposed to deal with the fight against authoritarianism, corruption and the strengthening of human rights, which sounded obviously great.

    SIGN UP TO OUR PAGE 
  It was obvious that in this way America wanted to create a forum where it could cooperate with countries that would like to politically detach themselves from China and Russia. In this way, a global democratic camp would be built around it, which would be opposed by China (still a communist country) and Russia (an autocratic country that maintains democratic veneer). Alongside these two great powers, there would also be North Korea of Kim, Syria of Assad, Belarus of Lukashenko, Venezuela, Iran. And few more.

In the creators’ conception, such an opposition was supposed to generate immense attraction to the camp of democratic countries led by the United States. Partially it succeeded, but only partially. There are many reasons for this, and one of them is something that could be called a fear of institutionalisation.

This illustrates an interesting idea from Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former NATO Secretary General and Prime Minister of Denmark, a widely respected figure. He proposed to counter China’s economic coercion by introducing a mechanism similar to NATO’s Article 5. However, while NATO’s Article 5 aims at collectively countering military aggression, in this case it is about countering politically motivated economic aggression.

Rasmussen cites several examples where China has imposed high tariffs or drastically reduced trade to force certain countries to adopt specific political behaviors. This was the case with Australian wine or trade with Lithuania. Therefore, Rasmussen would like a coalition of democratic countries to impose some kind of counter-sanctions in such cases, financially assist the attacked country, and provide markets lost as a result of Chinese actions.

This is probably detailed in specifics, but at first glance, it would not be possible without some kind of supranational body coordinating the economic response of the “democratic camp”. In other words, a joint secretariat. Because no one would agree to simply let the State Department coordinate such responses. Of course, this does not mean that such ideas are not present in the public space.

Not enough sticks

Just two days before the start of the Summit for Democracy, Jon Temin, an official from the US State Department, published an article in Foreign Affairs with the provocative title: “The U.S. Doesn’t Need Another Democracy Summit”. Anyone who is skeptical of the idea of dividing the world into democracies and autocracies would look for justification for their skepticism in reading this text, but after a few sentences, they would feel sorely disappointed.

Temin is not dissatisfied with the fact that the United States does not support democracy worldwide, but rather that it supports too little and, moreover, in an inconsistent and disorganised way. “If this summit, like the first, does not elevate democracy to a fundamental issue for security and does not lead to the formulation of strategies tailored to fighting authoritarianism in specific countries, many champions of democracy will be disappointed and may begin to think cynically about America’s intentions,” he wrote.

To leave no doubts about what the author meant by fighting authoritarianism in individual countries, one of the subheadings read: “Too many carrots, not enough sticks.” He also expressed disappointment that the Biden team opposes the formulation of “national-level plans,” or – if such plans exist but are kept secret – that it loses the opportunity to cooperate with local activists. The State Department would likely be responsible for monitoring the “progress” of countries covered by these plans.

I even think I know who the author of the text would see at the head of the appropriate department… However, the fundamental problem is what I wrote about at the very beginning: understanding democracy.

Dangerous label

People who some may call “democratic purists” and others may label as those guided by common sense, criticise the composition of invited leaders at the conference. A good example is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who just last week seemed to dangerously slide towards anti-democratic behaviors (in fact, many would see him rather in the dock of a corruption trial than at any conferences), while after deciding to freeze a controversial legislative process that sparked such hot protests in Israel, he calmly sits among the panelists discussing how democracy affects economic growth and prosperity.

His fellow panelist is Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose treatment of political opponents in the “largest democracy in the world” raises a number of concerns. However, India is too large and too important a country for a power like the United States to ignore and not invite.

Not inviting a country is automatically seen as recognition of it being undemocratic, despite spokespersons tying themselves into knots trying to show otherwise. This year, such disrespect was shown to two NATO members: Turkey and Hungary, who were not invited. Given the attitude of officials in the State Department, it is very possible that if it were not for the war in Ukraine and the significant increase in our country’s role as an ally in the region, Poland would have faced similar disrespect, as it is regularly listed in comments and studies as a country that lowers democratic standards, alongside Turkey and Hungary.

An uninvited country is censored and unofficially labeled as undemocratic. Among its citizens, especially those who voted for the ruling party in elections, this can cause understandable reluctance, while it can lead those in power to move closer to authoritarian countries.

Someone might argue that both Turkey and Hungary have been politically flirting with Russia and China for some time now, and it is not an unfounded claim. However, a good response to that is that such a move by Biden only further reinforces their belief that they are doing the right thing, especially since China firmly emphasizes that cooperation with them does not involve any preconditions.

Such division of the world is dangerous and may be met with a negative reaction, namely a refusal to participate despite receiving an invitation. This is already the case with Pakistan, which has issued a rather cold statement that it has nothing to accuse itself of in terms of the state of democracy (which sounds rather pompous), and that it will discuss bilateral issues separately with Washington. Democracy is merely a buzzword, not a real entity, and it ultimately boils down to politics.

Furthermore, by formulating his axis of democracies and autocracies, Joe Biden seems to have disregarded the fact that there are completely undemocratic countries that no one would think of inviting, but which are not offended by such exclusion, as it is how they define themselves. However, these politically important countries are needed for international policy. A classic example, of course, is Saudi Arabia, without whose support effective policy in the Middle East and management of the global fuel market is not possible. It is difficult to imagine anyone seeing the possibility of turning this country into a democracy, let alone a “liberal democracy”, which is the ideal model for most Western countries.

As Frederick Kempe, the head of the serious and strongly connected to American political elites think tank, The Atlantic Council, pointed out: “There is a long-term need to build more creative coalitions shaping the global future while abandoning the simplifying division into democracies and autocracies, which groups the worst despotisms, such as North Korea and Iran, with moderate and modernising nations that participate in the functioning of the global order.”

Meanwhile, Richard Haas, a veteran of American diplomacy and outgoing head of another prestigious think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, welcomed the second edition of the Democracy Summit with a simple statement on Twitter that it is a bad idea, as apart from the awkward question of whom to invite, American democracy is not a good model for others, and many undemocratic countries need to cooperate on sanctions against Russia and climate protection.

Two cents from mayors

Apart from the presidential camp and the State Department, it is difficult to find supporters of Joe Biden’s proposed division of the world in the United States. Even the liberal Washington Post once hinted that cooperation with, as they put it, “lower-tier criminals” is needed in America. So it can be assumed that this event will disappear with the departure of the current president. Although not entirely.

I must explain the title, as one of the accompanying actions of the Summit for Democracy was the issuance of the Global Declaration of Mayors for Democracy, in which (among other things) “addressing growing concern about the resilience of democratic systems around the world and the rise of authoritarianism,” mayors and presidents of 200 cities around the world passed a resolution to “rebuild and strengthen democracy.” The list of signatories to this declaration includes the mayors of London, Paris, Warsaw, and Kraków, as well as the signature of Mr Gabriel Wieczorek, the head of the commune [wójt] of the Mazovian municipality of Sanniki, which is really worth visiting, if only to see the beautiful 19th-century palace where Fryderyk Chopin used to stay and where his music is played. From now on, Sanniki will also be known for its global fight for democracy.

– Robert Bogdański

TVP WEEKLY. Editorial team and jornalists

– Translated by jz