Scribd
Upload
8 views2 pages

English Summary

Uploaded by

Alisha Shafira
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views2 pages

English Summary

Uploaded by

Alisha Shafira
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ENGLISH SUMMARY

Autocratization also known as democratic backsliding, is a gradual decline in the quality of


democracy and the opposite of democratization. If unchecked, democratic backsliding results
in the state losing its democratic qualities, becoming an autocracy or authoritarian regime.
Democratic decline is caused by the state-led weakening of political institutions that sustain
the democratic system, such as the peaceful transition of power or free and fair elections.
Although these political elements are assumed to lead to the onset of backsliding, other
essential components of democracy such as infringement of individual rights, especially
freedom of expression, question the health, efficiency and sustainability of democratic
systems over time.
Maybe a lot of people didn’t realize it, but autocratization affecting more people than ever,
- Almost 35% of the world’s population lives in autocratization nations, which means
2.6 billion peole are living in a democratic backsliding
- Only 8% of them were live under regimes that are becoming more democratic
- Eastern Europe and Central Asia are worst affected by autocratization, eight countries
were recorded significant regression over the last ten years
- Turkey lost its status as a democracy in 2014 and has since descended into the bottom
20% in the world on the Liberal Democracy Index
- The United States of America is the only country in Western Europe and North
America suffering for substantial autocratization.

Political scientist argues that blatant forms of democratic backsliding, such as classic, open-
ended coups d'état and election-day fraud, have declined since the end of the Cold War, while
more subtle and "vexing" forms of backsliding have increased. The latter forms of
backsliding entail the debilitation of democratic institutions from within. These subtle forms
are especially effective when they are legitimized through the very institutions that people
expect to protect democratic values.
autocratization, of course, cannot be separated from the influence of Waves of Democration.
The first wave of democratization started in the early 19 century and persisted until the
1920s, with many democracies backsliding at that time to autocracy. With the end of World
War Two came a second wave of democratization. This wave was however relatively brief,
with a large proportion of countries succumbing to autocracy in the 1950s and the remainder
of the second reverse-wave of democratization. In the mid-1970s the third wave of
democratization began, continuing in force through the 1990s with the end of the Cold War.
The Third Wave of democratization, which began in the mid-1970s, transformed the existing
formal political structures in much of the developing world. Nevertheless, the processes of
democratisation are not linear, as only a limited number of countries that have undergone
transitions to democracy have succeeded in establishing consolidated and functioning
democratic regimes. Since 2001, there are more autocracies than democracies in the world
and as a result, the "third wave of autocratization" is accelerating and deepening. In addition,
apart from the transition to autocratization, democratic backsliding may also lead to
authoritarian regressions, to revolutions, to hybrid regimes as they enter into political "gray
zones".
During national crises, there are unique risks of democratic backsliding. It can occur when
leaders impose autocratic rules during states of emergency that are either disproportionate to
the severity of the crisis or remain in place after the situation has improved. A crisis need not
lead to a permanent expansion of government powers as long as the public remains vigilant.
In time of crisis, international human rights law allows all goverments to temporarily limit
certain rights, by means of travel restrictions and social distancing rules. For example, as long
as the restrictions are strictly necessary, proportionate, and nondiscriminatory. Some
goverments, however are trying to use the coronavirus pandemic to silence critics, expand
surveillance, and entrench their rule. Whether they succeed will depend on wheter the public
understands that this would only increase the likelihood and severity of future public health
disasters.

You might also like