1. Transitioning to Democracy: Possible Traps Educational Initiatives www.eduinitiatives.org

2. Global rise of Democracy 1980s: 35% of the world lived under some form of democracy 2000s: 70% End of superpower rivalry Increased international support for democracy Global standards (UDHR) & regional organizations

3. Global rise of Democracy Interconnectedness o Arab Spring: events as they happened Result: 1) more of the world’s citizens have had a voice in political discourse 2) Universality for democracy

4. Why Not Autocracy? Autocracy can only maintain stability through coercion and patronage Corruption and human rights abuses Political exclusion and inequality o Increases risk of conflict breaking out in the future Humanitarian crises = USD 16.7 billion in 2010

5. Why Democracy? More civil liberties More prosperous, healthy, secure societies Enjoy higher economic growth in long term (30% faster than autocracies) More peaceful Inclusive policy development (check & balance) Tolerate criticism and opposition Protect minorities Avoids zero-sum politics

6. Why Democracy? Most preferable form of governance systems People won’t give it up after they struggle for it Majority of democratizers will continue even after a backslide Important to consolidate democracy

7. Moving away from authoritarianism…? Transitions are periods of political instability New democracies are usually flawed systems Different outcomes: 1) weak democracy 2) hybrid regime 3) instability 4) state failure Big risks during transition periods 55% of all democratization efforts have had some “backsliding”

8. Backsliding Most vulnerable backsliding time is within 5-6 years o Democratic institutions have are not yet consolidated Can take place 15-20 years after initial democratization efforts

9. What traps do democratizers face? 1.Repressive and unwilling regime 2.Lack of functional state structures 3.Entrenched autocratic political and economic interests 4.Meeting the expectations of the masses 5.Defending the authenticity of the transition to democracy

10. 1. Repressive and unwilling regime Climax of an event (economic crisis) can bring people onto the streets and force change Regime weakened and destabilized Continued loyalty of army or other security forces Can use brutal repression on protests 3 possible outcomes: o 1) Successful crackdown o 2) Unsuccessful crackdown, protests continue, possible negotiation o 3) Unsuccessful crackdown, more violence, state collapse Not such a risk for Myanmar/Burma

11. 2. Lack of functional state structures Authoritarian regime with a functional state helps stability during a period of transition Authoritarian regime with a dysfunctional state seriously weakens stability during a period of transition Predatory authoritarian regimes create dysfunctional states o Poor state institutions o Stole resources and state wealth o Failed to provide education, health, infrastructure o Deep corruption, mistrust and social fragmentation

12. 2. Lack of functional state structures Scenario 1: o Repressive, predatory regime & very dysfunctional state o Strong opposition with charismatic leadership, disciplined & loyal activists o POSSIBLE OUTCOME: 1) Opposition will probably gain popularity & momentum 2) Opposition will be tested as it governs a weak state Scenario 2: o Repressive, predatory regime & very dysfunctional state o Weak, disunited, and fragmented opposition & weak or absent civil society o POSSIBLE OUTCOME: 1) Nobody will be popular enough to set political agenda 2) Weakness of the state will cause more fragmentation 3) Limited governing ability 4) Disillusionment among citizens caused by instability and dysfunction

13. 2. Lack of functional state structures Risk for Myanmar / Burma?  Yes Predatory regime Dysfunctional state Deep social and political divisions Could undermine the reform process Suppressed problems could come up and fuel more dissatisfaction. United opposition? Who can govern a divided society with a dysfunctional state at the foundation?

14. 3. Entrenched autocratic political and economic interests Privileged (elites and security sector “old guard”) will resist threats of transition Enjoyed jobs, political appointments, contracts, educational opportunities, etc. “Old guard” starts the transition from a better position Big players in hybrid regimes Use their resources to take advantage of any disunity in opposition

15. 4. Meeting the expectations of the masses Jobs, services, stronger economy, increased governing competence, commitment to democratic practice. Transition euphoria  democratic disillusionment Trap A. Lasting economic troubles (dismantling the old economic system) Trap B. Economic expectations Trap C. Risk of natural resource curse Trap D. Incompetent governance by democratizers

16. 4. Trap A. Lasting economic troubles (dismantling the old economic system) Short run (first 5-8 years) transition economy often gets worse Debt Poor infrastructure Clientelism / patronage Inefficient tax system Crony monopolies Weak rule of law

17. 4. Trap B. Economic expectations Expectation of economic improvement BUT, expected growth requires a competent, confident and responsible government that can put the wellbeing of its citizens first. Countries moving from autocracy usually have weak institutions and little economic data Competitive neighbors? Competitive advantage?

18. 4. Trap C. Risk of natural resource curse Struggle to remove the cronyism and corruption involved in natural resource extraction remains Consequences of resource curse made worse by: o Weak state institutions o Heavy reliance by state economy on natural resources o High poverty rate o Weak regional competitive advantage in other sectors o Internal conflict Big benefits in controlling the state This can continue the zero-sum mentality

19. 4. Trap D. Incompetent governance by democratizers Relevant for oppositions that can win elections and form government Expectation of governing competence Expectation of increased democratic governance Possibility of opposition abusing their power

20. 5. Defending the authenticity of the transition Defend against divergent ideological, religious or economic interests. Consensus building and compromising Trap A. Lack of consensus about the character of the state Trap B. Rise of nationalism (sometimes extreme nationalism) Trap C. Manipulation by non-democratic political forces pushing for social or populist ideology.

21. 5. Trap A. Lack of consensus about the character of the state Under suppression, differences can grow stronger Lack of consensus can quickly become an open problem Demands are made over political design of the state  conflict Serious issue in Myanmar / Burma Question should be answered in the public space by brave, open and visionary intellectual talks

22. 5. Trap B. Rise of nationalism (sometimes extreme nationalism) Opening can lead to grievances being voiced Lack of strong political institutions means political players look elsewhere to gain political support Nationalism in divided societies can further split society More difficult to form broader and more inclusive political coalitions and civic grass root organizations Media is more easily fractured Social institutions assume political functions

23. 5. Trap B. Rise of nationalism (sometimes extreme nationalism) Very relevant possible trap for Myanmar / Burma Mobilization of ethnic nationalism can result in: 1) Large number of political parties 2) Underdeveloped civil society 3) Media is controlled by elite (they continue to spread language of nationalism) Extreme ethnic nationalism can be manipulated to destabilize democratization and reassert central authority and the “relative calm” of autocracy

24. 5. Trap C. Manipulation by non-democratic political forces pushing for social or populist ideology. Capture of state by undemocratic groups Democratic groups are sidelined (not cohesive or as easy to gain public support) Civil society, media, and public access to information and communications technology are essential in creating accountability when democratic institutions are weak.

25. How to Avoid Traps? 1) Civil society must uphold human rights and democratic norms 2) Media must act independently 3) Avoid extremism (create an open civic environment) CSOs are diverse, flexible, innovative