Are We Meeting the Democratic Inflection Point Moment? Lessons from Political Science

Like everyone else, I have watched the now month-long invasion of Ukraine by Russia with a broken heart to see the humanitarian disaster and the erasing of the precious infrastructure of human lives, history and culture.?And yet I am heartened by the courage and leadership shown by all Ukrainians to defend themselves as a democratic nation.?I worry that we are not meeting the moment here – and I say that as a political scientist, not just as a human being. #StandwithUkraine

?For decades, experts in policy circles have debated the so-called “Washington Consensus.” The “business case” for democracy and development is that free societies are based in free markets, and free markets and open societies support both development and good governance.?Unfortunately, this conventional wisdom is no longer sustainable – the so-called ”Washington Consensus ” has been attacked and increasingly discredited in some policy circles, while the alternate examples (you know them – I won’t name names) beyond noting that China has publicly stated that their model belies the current conventional wisdom about democratic/good governance as one of the preconditions of development is false.

?The dominant worry is the democracies don’t or can’t deliver.?But what happens when autocracies don’t deliver??We need to assess that as well, but it is a solvable problem. When democracies don’t deliver, it is a failure of leadership.?But when autocracies don’t deliver, it is due to rampant corruption and kleptocracies – a very different and often more intractable problem.?Democracy is based in the separation of economic and political power.?Democracy requires free markets as well as a free society.?In the words of Maurice Duverger, “Liberty and the party system coincide [when it is no longer the case that] economic and financial powers alone disposed of the Press, of techniques of information and propaganda, and of a means of organizing the electorate.”

What we need to talk more about is that there is so much immiseration when autocracies don’t deliver. This is because in autocracies citizens lack voice and resources and the governance has an overwhelming monopoly of power.?It is rare for folks to rise up because it starts with individuals.?When they do the personal costs are immense and we must honor all those who stand in front of tanks and join in the public square en mass.?People risk their own lives and the wellbeing of their future progeny knowing that freedom and democracy has become so precious that their #dutyofcare to their families and communities is best met by risking their jobs, their health and safety, their lives, and ultimately, their ability to support and protect their loved ones for now and for generations to come.?When enough individuals have decided that risking all is worth it, that is when we have democratic “springs.”?I am humbled over how often this has happened in human history and worry that today we are both taking this for granted and missing the importance of lifting up these movements when we see them.?When we fail to do so we must be aware of what this means.?I feel we owe more to those who have sacrificed so much. My question is: ?are we and our leaders who live within the community of democracies meeting the moment?

?In other words, is what is happening in Ukraine (and frankly – elsewhere in recent years in every other region in the world where there has been less coverage due gaps in post-colonization media coverage) something that the community of democracies can countenance in the name of #sovereignty and #treaties and #ruleoflaw ??That is the question of the day.

?I am not an expert of #international #law or #diplomacy or #internationalrelations.?But I am a student and practitioner of #democracy #democratization #democracysupport and #social movements. From that lens (admittedly, a partial perspective and so invite others to weigh), I can say that what the #pundits and #experts are missing is that Putin can win by losing.?If his goal is not to win an unwinnable war by democratic and western standards but merely to destabilize the West, a military victory is not necessary.?The humanitarian crisis of the displaced and refugees is in itself also an economic and social and democratic crisis for the community of democracies.?Autocracies thrive in chaos – can Europe and the world survive yet another forced displacement due to conflict and violence (we can name these as well)??In 2020, the UN noted that since 2010 we have historic levels of forcibly displaced persons with over 82.4 million displaced internally and externally globally.?Estimates are that more than one in four Ukrainians are now displaced.

?I’ve had a lot of jobs, but when folks ask what I do, when I give a deeper answer I say, “political science.”?Most think that means elections and partisanship.?I say “no” – that political science (not economics as so many think) is the “dark science” that studies (as a social science) how things like social movements fail and/or are co-opted by existing interests and how rare and precious true democratic social movements are.?As E.E. Schattschneider put it so profoundly, “The grand objective of the haves is obstruction .... Organization is not always necessary to obstruct; it is essential, however, for the promotion of a sustained program in behalf of the have-nots...over the long run the have-nots lose in a disorganized politics.”?

In my own published work (notably in Politics and Linkage), I have conceptually distinguished between social, political, intellectual and religious movements – and how these differ, in turn, from cults and gangs in how the haves and have nots engage in social and political action and represent their “constituencies” and the public.?What makes social movement special is their focus on nonviolence as educational and as a ?peaceful way to mobilize persuade publics through building public and political will – something so evident in Ukraine and elsewhere when democratic flowers bloom.?The civil rights and women’s movements in the U.S. are paradigm examples of this and have been global role models.?This unique nature of social movements as democratic movements also places them at risk.?Over the past 30 years, what has deeply frightened me is the degree of cooptation and elite capture that has occurred in both the U.S. and globally, and the rise of new entities for which we have no name – movements which are a blend of social discontent (the essential starter yeast for organized collective action which often results in social movements), religion and kleptocracy and/or criminal or cult elements that control territory using violence.?This destabilizes #ruleoflaw and #sovereignty and ordinary ways of “doing business” whether that "business" is democracy or economic in nature.

These points have sadly rarely been recognized within today's dominant public or practitioner discussions on social media and disinformation which focus overmuch on technology or traditional peacebuilding approaches through consensus. We in the public do not know what diplomats are discussing behind the scenes, but democracy needs sunlight and transparency. The public views also matter and this is part of the democratic crisis problem - how do we organize and speak to each other, and form opinions based upon what social scientists call "intermediation" on issues of democracy and war and peace??This is severely lacking currently, and it is broader than the concern over #polarization.? It is not how we are divided that is the problem – it is how we become united and gain public and political will in how to solve problems.

The history of new technologies from radio to television to fax machines and now the internet is that while early progenitors see the democratic potential, it soon gets co-opted by existing “haves.” Social and democratic movements have concrete aims, and these can be frustrated or achieved. Political and social science has much to teach us about how movements start, succeed – and fail.?I hope that the public discussion over the democracy crisis in Ukraine and elsewhere can reframe the discussion by understanding that “fighting the last war” focused only on international law or nuclear strategy deterrence war games fails to meet the new moment we are facing. For those of us who are committed to democracy and worry about closing spaces – there are lessons that we need to relearn and apply to this new era where we need new answers.?

?If this is truly an inflection point in democracies v. autocracies, we will need a new dialogue and soon to address the multiple challenges – and opportunities - we are now facing. Political science has much to add to the discussion beyond just legal frameworks and deterrence strategies - especially when many are asking if we are at the start of World War III?