Opinion: Doing development democratically

The ecosystem supporting human rights, democracy, and prosperity for billions of people may be more fragile than we thought. The phenomenal global rise of democratic orders and reduction of extreme poverty and violence from the 1950s to the turn of the millennium led to vast improvements in human freedom, dignity, and well-being. Yet 15 years of democratic decline and increasingly aggressive efforts by authoritarians to spread their influence are reversing democratic transitions and weakening the pillars of even the world’s most mature democracies. As we reached the end of history, it seems like someone started the film over again. The risks to people around the world are profound. There is significant evidence that, in the long run, inclusive, accountable, open, democratic societies are better for most everything we care about — food security, life expectancy, income, basic rights. Yet too much development investment seems agnostic about democracy, instead focusing on “effectiveness” and “delivery,” while often ignoring politics and civil rights. But in this era of pandemic, climatic, economic, and technological disruption, the large number of emerging and struggling democracies are a primary arena of emerging competition for influence and allies. There are between 80 to 100 flawed democracies and electoral autocracies, according to my analysis of indexes like the “Freedom in the World” report and the V-Dem Institute “Democracy Report 2020,” whose direction will determine whether the 21st century will be more open or closed than at the end of the 20th. The course of those nations will likely determine whether we achieve the Sustainable Development Goals: arresting climate change; realizing gender and racial equality; ending extreme poverty; managing migration; and improving global health security. Democratic self-governance not only supports development gains, but sustains them. --— Therefore, foreign policy and development policy cannot be content with just “good governance” and transitory results. We need a far more robust approach to supporting democracy and countering authoritarianism through development cooperation. We should be doing development democratically. Such a strategy would bring together efforts supporting government inclusivity, effectiveness, and accountability. Just governments derive their sovereignty from the will of the people, and must strengthen and adhere to the social contract in order to remain legitimate. Donors should therefore invest in the foundations of political systems necessary to build and sustain legitimate government, including elections systems with integrity, independent media, and legislative and judicial checks. For example, a coalition of partners created a Ukrainian Election Task Force in 2019 to detect and address foreign interference. Inclusivity is also essential. Citizens must be engaged in policy-making, budgeting, and oversight of government. DFID-funded efforts to support state and local government in the 20 years since the re-emergence of democracy in Nigeria, for example, have both increased government inclusiveness and responsiveness and strengthened civil society to hold government to account. Access to justice, services, and opportunities must be afforded to all citizens, not just those who can afford them. Ultimately, the government must also be accountable to the people, and critical roles are played by an ecosystem of parliament, media, transparency rules and bodies, electoral institutions, and legal and justice mechanisms where needed. While accountability to citizens is hypothetically possible in authoritarian environments, it is the premise of democratic ones. Doing development democratically is also fundamental to the long-term goal of transitioning countries off aid altogether. Democratic self-governance not only supports development gains, but sustains them. For example it is the cycle of growth, demand for services, innovation, and accountability, that moves a project to create energy access from charity into a sustainably financed service. When multiplied across sectors, an integrated, accountable system of governance balances interests and prevents looting of what has been built. Doing development democratically would be a powerful next step in the evolution in development thinking. Some leading development institutions have embraced a core idea: that development is inherently political, and that sustainable development requires “doing development differently” by putting politics at the center. During the Obama-Biden administration, for example, USAID recognized that “poverty is underpinned by poor and undemocratic governance, weak and corrupt institutions, and entrenched power dynamics that lead to political and economic exclusion.” Autocracy is not the answer. I have worked in many places beset by poverty and oppression: Just because your food, water, education, health may be inadequate doesn’t mean you also don’t yearn for freedom, equality, and justice. While autocratic nations like China and Ethiopia have made important progress against extreme poverty, there are many which do not. Over time, most dictatorships tend toward brutal repression and fragility, which the Xinjiang gulags, Hong Kong, and the situations in Zimbabwe and Venezuela amply demonstrate. Faltering democracy in the United States and the European Union, the legacy of systemic racism and colonialism, and failings in dealing with the pandemic cause many to ask “who are you to talk about promoting democracy?” The U.S. doesn’t preach democracy for others because we have it figured out, we work on it together because we are all in it together. Is there serious cause to doubt that a more democratic Brazil, Turkey, India, Nigeria, Vietnam, Hungary are going to be vital for our collective future, a bulwark against creeping tyranny? It will always be the citizens struggling on the front lines who bring about change in their own societies. The movements, institutions, and coalitions that are needed to address systemic problems don’t just emerge suddenly, they are the result of long-term investment, preparing the ground to enable transformation. They come from confronting kleptocracy with anti-corruption efforts, disinformation with free speech, oppression with the exercise of the right of assembly. We should boost support to democratic transitions in a range of “swing countries” where democratization could pay significant dividends — such as Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Ethiopia, the Gambia, Malaysia, and Sudan. Progress is likely to positively influence its less democratic neighbors. Much investment is in places where the road will be hard, and gains slow to consolidate. My own research for a July 2020 report from the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, shows that seven of the top 10 recipients of U.K. bilateral aid are electoral autocracies — the others are closed autocracies. And of 32 Department for International Development priority countries, only seven have improved democracy scores since 2009 — and those include Myanmar and Zimbabwe. Global aid statistics tell a similar story. Wealthy democracies are no longer the only — or even most influential — players on the development field. Many struggling democracies are facing new challenges and backsliding, while authoritarian-leaning governments are becoming more restrictive, expanding their arsenal of repressive tactics, and sharing their tools and playbook with others. A partnership for doing development democratically — along with a broader strategy to defend democracies and counter authoritarianism — could be critical in helping to secure rights and prosperity for billions.