How Freedom is Won

Freedom House has released a report on how democracies form from formerly undemocratic regimes [PDF] around the world -- and their findings are surprising. While new democracies do form in a variety of ways, Freedom House found that the sustaining of those new democracies depends heavily on how the change was brought about -- and how quickly improvements in freedom are made after the previous regime has been toppled. The surprise in all of this is that successful change and sustaining depends a lot on way the change was brought about. In their studies, using data from the past 30-years on regime changes around the world, Freedom House found that success comes from nonviolence.

Freedom House narrowed their study to 67 countries that were previously governed by closed, authoritarian or tyrannical governments -- of the 192 countries in the world. They found that of these countries that experienced a regime change, people power in the form of nonviolent civic resistance -- via boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes and civil disobedience -- were more or less successful, and resisted the slip back into undemocratic regimes. The findings are summarized as follows:

• First, "people power" movements matter, because nonviolent civic forces are a major source of pressure for decisive change in most transitions.
• Second, there is comparatively little positive effect for freedom in "top-down" transitions that were launched and led by elites.
• Third, the presence of strong and cohesive nonviolent civic coalitions is the most important of the factors examined in contributing to freedom.
• Fourth, the data suggests that the prospects for freedom are significantly enhanced when the opposition does not itself use violence.

What this all suggests is the need for more assistance from established democracies in aiding, training and encouraging nonviolent civic opposition to existing nondemocratic regimes. As Freedom House points out, it's much cheaper to support civic movements than mounting military adventures on foreign soil. With data showing that peaceful civic led regime changes are far more successful; results in far greater freedoms; and have staying power, you might wonder why in the world military expeditions continue to be the choice of the power democracies. Freedom House points out that,

The world is moving toward greater respect for political rights and civil liberties. Authoritarian rule, political despotism, rampant state criminality and corruption, and the systematic abuse of minorities are under challenge. Yet while there had been momentum in favor of freedom, further such progress is far from guaranteed. If the globe's growing community of democracies does not fully understand and respond intelligently with specific initiatives that reinforce and promote change through the strategic use of nonviolent civic action, authoritarian rule will persist in many settings.

So why does the world's most powerful democracy prefer a violent end to bring about democracy? That is after all, the given reason for the US misadventures in Iraq -- it's not oil. Could it be that to understand the US behaviour, one only needs to reflect back on one sentence above: Authoritarian rule, political despotism, rampant state criminality and corruption, and the systematic abuse of minorities are under challenge. Post 9/11, the US has been slowly adopting the practices of the very regimes they seek to destroy. Does one need to become tyrannical to fight tyranny?