I wonder how much and in what way they are related to the U.S. changing its long-standing policy from being the guarantor of international order, and from being an advocate for democracy as a universal right. Some examples in my list started before the current US policy went into effect, but perhaps the US is accelerating a trend, merely responding to it, or even taking an active hand (during the Cold War the US played an active role in such things, from Congo/Zaire to Chile to Iran to Indonesia to many other places). Perhaps others are taking active hands now that the US is out of the picture (to a significant degree) as guarantor.
That trend, away from democracy, is very serious and is the headline here for me. Generations fought, struggled and died to establish the legacy of democracy and human rights that we inherited; what are we building for the next generation? It feels like we are just gambling away the family inheritance.
Second, I myself consider the degradation of the current state of affairs in the world to be due to the global slowdown of economic growth. Less growth means less disposable income, means more social unrest and the rise of autocraty to maintain order.
And what are you basing the "global slowdown of economic growth" on? Gross World Product has been growing at around 3% since the second world war, and hasn't slowed down recently at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product And particularly, Africa is growing faster than anywhere else.
Order is not democracy or freedom; the US had the role of maintaining international order - preventing chaos. My comment pointed out many times when the US did not support democracy, including some of the same examples used by the parent.
However, I'll point out here that while imperfect, democracy expanded rapidly under 'Pax Americana' from WWII until recently. Almost all of Europe and all of the Americas are now democratic; there are some African countries, India, East Asia, SE Asia, and more. It has been an incredible time for liberty, despite the many and substantial setbacks.
It was hard to get out of that state of emergency precisely because it was 1/ popular 2/ politically dangerous (what happens if a major scale attack happens right after it is being lifted?).
> I am not sure it is fair to call it "undemocratic".
> It was hard to get out of that state of emergency precisely because it was 1/ popular 2/ politically dangerous (what happens if a major scale attack happens right after it is being lifted?).
If we define 'democratic' in the literal sense, majority rule, then I agree. But that's mob rule and not what people mean when they talk about democracy. Civil rights - protection of the minority from the majority - are assumed to be essential, and the state of emergency (if I understood correctly) suspended those rights to a degree. Civil rights exist specifically for situations like this one.
The way I remember it is the saying: 'Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner'.
Also it’s funny that you’re referring to the US - the greatest supporter of Saudi Arabia - as the noble protector of democracy and human rights. Seems like someone drank too much Kool-Aid?
True, and I used the term "undemocratic assumption of power", which is also true.
I didn't say they were democracies, though I understand why someone might take that implication. My point was that these governments are moving away from democracy to having power more consolidated and away from the rule of law to the rule of one person. In contrast, the leaders could have moved toward democracy, announcing reforms in that direction.
> Also it’s funny that you’re referring to the US - the greatest supporter of Saudi Arabia - as the noble protector of democracy and human rights. Seems like someone drank too much Kool-Aid?
I didn't mean to imply any nobility or altruism about it, and I purposely omitted that kind of language to avoid provoking a tangential debate on it.
Beyond a doubt the U.S.'s behavior, going back to its beginnings as a world power over a century ago, has been self-contradictory and complicated; sometimes the U.S. works in favor of democracy and sometimes against it. But also beyond a doubt, promotion of democracy has been one strong aspect of it, and it's been bipartisan until now. Reagan was a strong supporter (and yet undermined others). GW Bush claimed democracy promotion was part of his reason for invading Iraq, and they fully expected to establish a nascent democracy there and in Afghanistan. In this White House, establishing and supporting democracy is no longer discussed and is openly disparaged, and the White House openly admires dictators who consolidate power (including in China and Saudi Arabia).
Saudi Arabia and China have not had coups, and are not democratic countries, so any change is "undemocratic", but that's not a chance and means little. Xi's actions are hardly different that Deng's or, before him, Mao's. Lumping them in with Turkey, which is experiencing a slow motion coup, is bizarre.
Conversely, Japan and France have neither had coups nor an "undemocratic assumption of power", so clearly don't belong in the same list as Turkey. Lebanon I'm not really familiar with, and I don't even know what Eastern European country you're talking about, so I can't comment on them, but the rest of your list makes no sense. Nor does Zimbabwe fit on your list; the coup is a best neutral in terms of democracy, and could be a step towards greater democracy.
> I wonder how much and in what way they are related to the U.S. changing its long-standing policy from being the guarantor of international order, and from being an advocate for democracy as a universal right
Unless you're talking about the second President Bush's much maligned (and mostly unsuccessful) foreign policy, I have no idea what you're talking about. The US has not traditionally advocated for democracy as a universal right, and it spent much of the Cold War backing dictators and, in some cases, overthrowing elected governments.
> That trend, away from democracy,
By which you mean "Turkey"? (And maybe Lebanon; again I'm unfamiliar with the situation there.) I see no trend.
In China, for example, the tradition of a rotating presidency, which party members had a role in choosing, has become a lifetime dictatorship; and rule of law has been replaced by rule of man. Free speech has become increasingly restricted. In contrast, Xi could have taken steps to devolve power more; he could have stepped aside, and introduced a law enshrining the tradition of limited terms for presidents (instead of discarding the tradition), or empowering the legislature. He could have announced open elections at the village level, and opened up speech and the press, as some of his predecessors did.
Japan has consolidated power at the executive level and taken steps to restrict some speech, and I already discussed France's emergency powers. Zimbabwe's coup is undemocratic. You may hope it will work out well, and so do I, but there was no democracy involved. These all are changes of degree, to less democracy.
Some comments in the parent are factually incorrect:
> Xi's actions are hardly different that Deng's or, before him, Mao's.
The actions of Mao, Deng, and Xi are starkly different. Deng is known almost as the anti-Mao (though he would never say that), for undoing the totalitarian ideological disaster of Mao, for putting China on a road to stable governance, and for opening it up economically and politically. The Tienanmen Square protests of June 4, 1989 were a culmination of Deng's political openness (obviously he changed course that day, but they were far more open when he stepped down than when he started). Deng purposely avoided taking on Mao's cult of personality, even to the extent of being cremated and having his ashes scattered in the sea so there would be no mausoleum like Mao and Lenin (IIRC). Deng began the tradition of limited terms for presidents, which Xi now has discarded; Xi also has pursued a cult of personality, in contrast to Deng. The foundation of Xi's legitimacy is the wealth of right-wing capitalism, in great contrast to Mao's foundation in the utter rejection of and work against such things, and his communist social and economic ideals and experiments.
> The US has not traditionally advocated for democracy as a universal right
I'm not sure what to say here. While the U.S. certainly has not always acted in accord with its words, it certainly has advocated exactly that repeatedly, loudly and strongly for generations, from Wilson, at least, through Obama. It's in the Declaration of Independence as the foundation of the country - "all men" are endowed with these rights, was the argument for independence.
I wonder how much it related to the U.S. deciding to become a global military empire after the fall of the Soviet Union, instead of declaring victory and seeking to create a world where the rule of law was respected.
This is the real reason for a maximum of 2 or 3 terms. Power corrupts.
When? What did he do that was good? He didn't implement democracy; that would have been good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#Prime_Minister_o...
Largely to me it seems he started with genuinely 'good intentions' that didn't work out, vs being a 'good leader'. Good to me includes both vision and execution.
There are multiple cases in developing countries where the family/friends takes over in case of someone powerful going senile.
From today: listen to this from around 8:10 (it starts at 6am, so skip to 2:10) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09drjhz
That was never confirmed
Those were the same military men who said that the military had custody of Mugabe, so it's somewhat confusing.
EDIT: just to be clear not every person in charge is ex-slave or something, but as a country even if they started financially strong it does not mean they had the culture to support it
“We are only targeting criminals around him who are committing crimes that are causing social and economic suffering in the country in order to bring them to justice,"
This doesn't look good.
The former vice president, Mnangagwa (who was sacked by Mugabe last week, so that his wife Grace could take the #2 spot) is acting president, according to an army statement.
Also, reports of gun and artillery fire from northern Harare - the district where Mugabe and his cronies live.
Also, predictably, the army claims this is not a coup, and that they are merely acting to preserve the constitution and the republic. (That being said, if one is to stage a coup somewhere, one could find a less deserving country than Zimbabwe; let's just hope the army has the good sense to hand over power to civilian authorities ASAP.)
Who for?
The situation in Zimbabwe is bad enough that things could hardly get much worse. Worst case, one corrupt dictator gets replaced by a different successor than would otherwise have been the case. It's not like a military junta could be less democratic or more corrupt than the existing regime, after all.
