Power has become personal in most democracies
In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has committed to leaving the European Union with or without a ‘backstop’ protecting the border arrangements between British-ruled Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. His hardline position ignores the concerns of Northern Irish constituents entirely. It is geared toward rallying his pro-Brexit English base, even if that means threatening the fragile peace and prosperity in Ireland. India has revoked the special, constitutionally protected status of Jammu and Kashmir.
In the world’s other great democracy, President Donald Trump has upended America’s relationship with Mexico and other Central American neighbours, and rallied his base by repeatedly demonising Hispanics. The US Hispanic community is now paying a harsh price for such rhetoric, as evidenced by the massacre in El Paso, Texas, this month.
The shredding of longstanding protections for minority communities is part of a wider trend in democracies around the world. Three worrying features stand out. First, politicians are imperiling the ‘public square’, and the ability of citizens to argue, demonstrate, and debate without the threat of violence. Political leaders are deepening social divisions by pitting an ‘us’ against a ‘them’ that includes foreigners, neighbours, immigrants, minorities, the press, ‘experts’, and ‘the elite’.
In India, rights groups have accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of creating a ‘climate of impunity’ for angry mobs. In America, many believe Trump is doing the same, pointing, for example, to his racist tweets targeting four Democratic congresswomen of colour. During the Brexit referendum campaign in the UK, Facebook users were targeted with posts suggesting that staying in the EU would leave Britain vulnerable to receiving 76 million
Turkish immigrants. One ‘Leave’ ad showed a surly foreign man elbowing a tearful elderly white woman out of a hospital queue. A recent survey suggests that there has been a disturbing increase in racially motivated abuse, discrimination, and attacks against ethnic-minority Britons.
Second, having won power through democratic elections, these leaders are seeking to weaken independent institutions and checks on executive power. For example, Trump invoked nationalemergency powers to secure funding for his wall on the US border with Mexico. Johnson refuses to rule out suspending Parliament in order to deliver Brexit.
Indeed, nine officials have resigned or been dismissed from Trump’s cabinet since 2017, and the president regularly uses Twitter (and even presidential pardons) to reward loyalty or to bully those who fall into disfavour. In the UK, Brexiteers’ attacks on the UK civil servant leading negotiations with the EU became so aggressive as to elicit a highly unusual public statement from the acting cabinet secretary (telling those responsible that they should be “ashamed of themselves”). When Johnson became prime minister, 17 ministers were ‘purged’ and new members of the government were required to pledge support for his goal of leaving the EU at the end of October.
The personalisation of power replaces formal and fair processes with discretionary decisions and favours. It erodes the democratic principle that all citizens — including the head of state — are subject to the rule of law, and that politicians exercise delegated power, not a personal fiat.
Many voters have expressed outrage at the actions of Modi, Johnson, and Trump. But many other democracies are in trouble, too. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro all stand accused of unconstitutional behaviour. Nonetheless, each man continues to fan divisions, weaken independent institutions, and ignore open conflicts of interest, in many cases involving family members.
Shaming such leaders is unlikely to change their ways. They are all practised in blithely dismissing mistakes and shrugging off incendiary past statements, conflicts of interest, corruption allegations, lying and deception, and improper dealings.
Rather than relying on outrage, democrats around the world need to apply with rigour the rules that prevent the personalisation of power, while defending the institutions that protect individuals and minorities. Public officials should not be allowed to use their office to insulate themselves from accountability — through grants of immunity or presidential pardons to benefit friends and family members — or to hide evidence of their illegal behaviour.
India, the UK, and America are each ‘model’ democracies: India is the largest, Britain has the Westminster model, and America has an extraordinary constitution. In each of these great democracies, minorities are under attack, as are the conventions that restrain executive power. Citizens in each country need to understand that if they do not defend the institutions that protect minorities today, they themselves may come under attack tomorrow.
India, the UK, and America are each ‘model’ democracies: India is the largest, Britain has the Westminster model, and America has an extraordinary constitution