In this post I will explore the fragility of liberal democracy.

In March 1981, I was a passenger on a Soviet Aeroflot aircraft on a Washington, D.C. – Moscow route. A blizzard in Moscow diverted the plane to Leningrad where we sat off the runway for two hours. Losing patience, the pilot took off for Moscow where we landed at the Sheremetyevo International Airport at about 2 P.M local time. By 4 o’clock I was walking on Red Square amazed by St., Basil’s Cathedral, GUM, Moscow’s largest department store, and the walls of the Kremlin. Not only was this my first time in the USSR, but it was the first time that I traveled internationally. It wouldn’t be my last. For the next twenty years I returned to Russia, and Red Square on a journey of collaboration, friendships and research. But that’s for another time.

Red Square

We were standing in the midst of the Soviet State. The country was a federal socialist state. It was comprised of multiple Soviet republics, three of which I would eventually visit. But more importantly for this discussion, the USSR was a one-party state governed by the Communist Party. It was an illiberal one-party state. The illiberal one-party state was founded by Lenin in 1917 (Applebaum, 2020).

The ruling party controlled everything from industry and jobs to the government. The only quality that was really important was loyalty to the principles of the Communist party. Keep in mind, however, that it’s not necessary to have an illiberal state without competing political parties. In these cases, the one-party state exists because those in opposition party leaders are arrested or in some cases killed. The media in these illiberal states is called “enemy of the people” by party leaders. There are many examples of this in the world right now. Applebaum calls this type of governing “soft dictatorship.” She cites Russia, the Philippines, Poland, and Hungary.

During the time period that I was directly involved with Russia, Ukraine and Soviet Georgia, the one-party illiberal state gave way to forms of democratization. It was Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev’s policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) that moved the Soviet Union toward liberal democracy, fragile as it was.

Russian democratization

The liberal democracy that emerged in Russia brought collaboration that we could have only dreamed of in 1981. The process of democratization in Russia was economically painful, especially during the period 1992 – 1994. Hyper-inflation created sky high food prices and made it very difficult for families to exist. Yet, during this period of time, the relationships with colleagues only deepened.

We had by this time been meeting in each others homes (in Russian and the U.S.). This strengthened our commitment to each other as well how to work together as equal partners. And, wouldn’t you know, the U.S. government was interested in fostering democratization in Russia. Grants were available from the United States Information Agency to fund experimental project such as the Global Thinking Project that we and our Soviet colleagues had developed. For many years we fostered people-to-people exchanges amongst student and teachers in middle and high schools across two continents.

A Fledging Liberal Democracy

The fledging liberal democracy that developed in Russia was a valuable asset for the people who we worked with at schools, universities, research institutes, as well as parents and students.

Yet we have to say that liberal democracy is fragile. Once Putin became president, the country began to slide back into a from of soft dictatorship. Russia is a multi-party state, but Putin has been able to gather elites and wealthy industrialists, a state media and courts that carry out the government’s wishes. Applebaum says that in countries with soft dictatorships (like Russia, Poland, etc), sycophants understand their role which is to defend the leaders, however great their corruption or dishonest their statements, and however disastrous their impact on ordinary people and institutions (Applebaum, 2020).

American Soft Dictatorship

Donald Trump was on his way to establish a soft dictatorship in the United States. Soft dictators need to be able to control elections. They want to give the appearance of running a government that is “democratically” elected.

Interesting, one of the tactics used by these would-be dictators is to rig elections. They rig elections by buying votes. They use fear and intimidation to force people to vote for them, as well as stealing and stuffing ballot boxes.

Donald Trump used a slightly different strategy, with the outcome being the same as if the United States had already become a soft dictatorship. First he claimed that the election would be rigged in favor of his opponent. He then claimed the other side rigged local elections by stealing ballots, or manipulating electronic voting computers to change votes away from him and to his competitor, Joe Biden. He also went around the country claiming that he actually won the election with his Big Lie. The Big Lie was gross propaganda claiming that the election was stolen and Trump and his minions pushed it with the phrase “Stop the Steal.”

Trump’s Thousands

With ease, Trump brought thousands of Americans to Washington DC on January 6, 2021, the day Congress would be carrying out its duty to read the results of each state’s electoral college results. The results were certified nearly a month earlier by each state. Trump insisted that Vice-President Mike Pence could change the outcome by sending the results back to each state and ordering the the states to change the votes.

This is not farfetched. Recall that Trump called Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Secretary of State, to ask him to find enough votes to change the outcome of the election. By this time, the state of Georgia had counted the presidential vote three times. There was no difference in the results after each count. Now, the Fulton County District Attorney has opened a criminal case investigating whether Trump broke any election laws in Georgia.

I would not define Trump’s move to a soft dictatorship soft. He led an insurrection of thousands of right-wing individuals who stormed the United States Capitol eager to find and kill anyone who was part of the government that was denying Trump the presidency. They came within inches of capturing legislators, and were very close to the Vice-President and his family. The mob had constructed a noose and were going to hang Mike Pence. They were also looking for the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. They wanted to kill her.

Democracies are Fragile

Democracies are fragile. The United States came the closest it has come to having its capitol overrun by insurgents. Two previous events come to mind: the War of 1812, in which the British burned the capitol, and the Civil War, when the Confederate Army came close to capturing Washington D.C.

Donald Trump was impeached for a second time because he ordered the attack on the United States government, of which he is President. He did noting to stop the attack. This has been documented by phone calls, and text notes of people who overhead a call between Donald Trump and Kevin McCarthy, leader of the republican minority in the House. The impeachment trial proved the democratic manager’s case that Trump incited a mob to attack the Capitol with the intent of securing the halls of Congress and preventing the final certification of Joe Biden as President-Elect.

Donald Trump came close to carrying out his wish to overthrow the will and vote of the people by using strong arm dictatorial tactics. Trump had his army of right-wing mobsters, many of whom have been arrested and will face the federal justice system.

Trump lost. He was in my mind convicted and found guilty by 57% of the Senate. And in the end, millions of American voters will agree that Trump is guilty of insurrection and sedition and will never hold a public office again.

But….

Democracies are fragile.