An Exception to An Otherwise Dismal Pattern

 Over the past few years, in one country after another, a disturbing pattern has emerged, of which unfolding events in Ukraine are just the latest example. Mass demonstrations, by despairing citizens, arise, typically in the central squares of capital cities, then spread to the provinces; these, in turn, spark often violent reaction from governments desperate to retain their long-standing hold on power, taking the form of placing riot police, army personnel and even tanks in the squares with, at times, instructions to shoot at and kill protesters; then, as global press coverage increases and demonstrators prove extraordinarily resilient, the reigning autocrat is forced to give up, flees the country or is imprisoned, and his regime collapses; the world applauds, rushing in with emergency economic aid, while an IMF team waits in the wings, ready with a long-term recovery plan that invariably includes multi-billion-dollar loans conditional on fiscal reform, including the phasing out of unaffordable, but very popular, fuel and food government subsidies; finally, a new government is formed by political opponents who call early elections and promise to be honest and representative in the interim.

This pattern has so far not typically ended well. In the Arab Spring movements, for example, new regimes have proven themselves inept, utterly incapable of filling political vacuums (think Libya), or simply bent on instituting their own alternative form of autocracy (think the Muslim Brotherhood and former President Morsi in Egypt); economic pressures have persisted and usually worsened; and the state of the post-demonstrations union, and the everyday plight of most citizens, have remained at least as dismal as ever. Clearly, bringing down a despotic, extractive regime has been the relatively easy part; replacing it with transparent, effective government is quite another task.

There are exceptions to the pattern, usually in countries where the process of democracy is entrenched. Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto, has become - given his, by now, well-known antics, utterances and crack pipes - something of an international joke, and certainly an embarrassment to a city and province now obliged to investigate him, and to a country not normally thought of as being out of control. But notwithstanding that Mr. Ford has managed to remain in office quite beyond his expiry date, Canada's largest city has a framework in place in which citizens can choose to replace him without resorting to igniting fires in the streets and squares. They won't risk being beaten, imprisoned or murdered for demanding change. In a mature democracy, it's called, simply, a scheduled election. And following on the theme of this blog - that finding better leaders to replace ousted despots is the really hard part of the process - Toronto has a number of declared candidates for mayor (think especially John Tory), any one of which could be counted on to restore competent leadership and administration.

Advocates and students of democracy have always regarded it as a potent but imperfect mechanism. John Adams, an Enlightenment political theorist, America's first vice-president, and its second president, even thought that "democracy never lasts long". Recent world events, in which democratic experiments appear to have failed, or at least stumbled badly, certainly attest to this view. But some nascent democracies, like the one in America when John Adams was writing, may start out as fragile, but can and do mature. Those long-lasting ones, such as what exists in Canada's largest city, do continue to function - often messily - but in a way that produces peaceful political transition. That's quite a lot - and why the world should not give up nurturing democratic movements however fitful their beginnings.