What is European-style democracy?

When talking about European-style democracy, we are not referring specifically to the European Union and all its institutions, but rather to a set of standards and values shared by a large number of European states on the subject of democracy. These standards and ideals are in particular those described by the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville in his work entitled ‘La démocratie en Amérique’. In his book, Tocqueville describes what he observed of the nascent democracy in the United States and more particularly certain values, which today have become those that we attribute to European democracy. These include the equality of citizens, respect for individual freedoms, a high degree of political plurality, and, more generally, the separation of powers.

Since the publication of this book, democracy has become widespread in Europe. Although it existed before, it was only the first outline of the democracy we know today. The French Revolution of 1789 is considered to be a key event in the birth of democracy on the European continent, with the establishment of the first Republic in France in 1792 and the drafting of a major text in our history: La déclaration des droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen.

How is democracy performing at the moment?

In the midst of economic and social crises, and may I even say a crisis of confidence, European-style democracy seems to be showing its limits. As a consequence, people are increasingly skeptical about the usefulness of their vote or simply disinterested and disillusioned with politics are no longer taking part in elections. For example, in France, voter turnout in the first round of presidential elections, which are considered the most important elections for the country, since they determine who will be president for the next 5 years, fell by almost 11% between 1965 and 2022, from around 84% of votes cast to 73%. This drop in turnout has a considerable impact on our democracy since it calls into question the legitimacy of the winner. Can the winner be considered a winner if almost 25% of people of voting age abstain? Can the future president be considered as the representative of the people, as democracy dictates? and more importantly, what can we do to remedy this problem? The reality is that we have to do something to avoid heading towards a wall.

Other examples: not-so-democratic democracies?

The fact here is that democracy as we know it needs to change, and I believe it is appropriate to illustrate this change with two examples. With these, I’m not arguing for a model similar to the one chosen by the proposed countries, but rather aim at showing that a system different from a traditional European democracy can still be very successful. The first example is therefore that of a country which, although well known internationally, our knowledge of remains rather obscure. Singapore will be the subject of this discussion. From a British colony to a member of the Malaysian federation, Singapore has seen some difficult days. The country gained full independence in 1965 and the Republic of Singapore was proclaimed. Following this new democratic time, the PAP (People’s Action Party) came to power, and a certain Lee Kwan Yew became Prime Minister. He took power in a tense climate, notably due to racial problems between the Chinese, Malays, and Indians. In addition, the country was plunged into extreme poverty. To deal with these problems, Lee introduced strict control over the population, the media, and political opposition. He remained in power for almost 3 decades. For us Europeans, this time in power and the measures taken contradict the fundamental values of our democracy. However, thanks to strong economic and social measures, including the creation of social housing, the establishment of an education system, and strong industrialization, he succeeded in transforming a poor country into a prosperous and strong country, which was well integrated into the international system. Today, 35 years after Lee left power, the PAP remains in power. Thus, although considered democratic, thanks to a certain power held by its parliament, Singapore has a democracy quite different from the one we know in Europe. However, although unknown to us, this control has allowed the country to prosper and become a major player in globalization and offer good living conditions to its population.

Another country I would like to discuss is El Salvador. Considered one of the most dangerous countries in the world a few years ago, it is now one of the safest, thanks to one man, Nayib Bukele. Elected in 2019, Bukele has greatly changed the country, imprisoning nearly 100,000 people. His arrests, although arbitrary and contrary to the principles of democracy, have enabled the country to emerge from the crisis in which it was plunged. Today, the country is open to the world, with a flourishing tourism industry and encouraging economic prospects. However, to get to this stage, President Bukele had to employ highly controversial methods, notably changing the constitution to allow him to serve a second consecutive term. Moreover, he is accused of keeping a firm grip on the country’s media and social networks, preventing people from criticizing either him or his government.

In conclusion, I would like to clarify one more time that I am not an advocate of the countries presented here. However, the examples of Singapore and El Salvador show that even though democracy isn’t fully respected a country can thrive. Our European morals are therefore only our point of view and do not stand as the only option these examples could even challenge them. Through this article  I wish to show that opinions and values different from those we know today can be very successful, I hope to open people’s eyes to the democratic crisis we are currently experiencing in Europe, and to show them that our way is not the only right way.