Episode 18: Can a Summit Save Democracy?

 

Michael Abramowitz on the Democracy Recession

President Joe Biden argues the contest between democracy and autocracy will be the defining challenge of the twenty-first century. Meanwhile, Freedom House observes democracy around the world has experienced its steepest drop in its fifteen-year decline. Seeking to reverse this trend, the United States is hoping to “set forth an affirmative agenda for democratic renewal” this week when it brings together 110 countries for a two-day virtual Summit for Democracy. But can the US effectively lead this charge when, as Freedom House has shown, America’s own democracy is in decline?

This week, Eurasia Group Foundation’s Mark Hannah is joined by Freedom House president Michael Abramowitz, who guides us through the 2021 edition of his organization’s flagship report, “Freedom in the World.” Along the way, Abramowitz discusses the democracy summit’s challenges and opportunities, and America’s nonmilitary tools for supporting democracy and human rights around the globe.

Michael Abramowitz is president of Freedom House. Previously, he was a White House correspondent for the Washington Post before becoming director of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Levin Institute for Holocaust Education.

This podcast episode includes references to the Eurasia Group Foundation, now known as the Institute for Global Affairs.

Show notes:

Archival audio:

Transcript:

December 7, 2021

MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ: I think the fact that the United States is trying to rally countries, other democracies, to come together and work together to shore up democracy is a good thing. And I think that's a sign we still have some juice in the world, that people do care, and that the United States has an ability to put focus on really important issues. 

MARK HANNAH: Welcome to None of the Above, a podcast of the Eurasia Group Foundation. My name is Mark Hannah. On Thursday, President Biden will host a two-day virtual democracy summit with leaders from government, civil society, and the private sector. These leaders will come together from more than one hundred countries to set—and I quote—“an affirmative agenda for democratic renewal around the world.”

Interlude featuring archival audio 

HANNAH: Why the need for a global summit of democracies? And what will it accomplish? 

ABRAMOWITZ: Freedom House does a score of every country in the world. We look at 24 different indicators of political rights and civil liberties, and we assign every country a score on a zero to 100 basis every year. And what we’ve found is that every year for the past fifteen years, more countries are suffering declines in political rights and civil liberties than those that are having an improvement. And this is happening across the board, in every continent, and really in every type of country. 

HANNAH: That's Michael Abramowitz. Michael is the president of Freedom House who joins us today to talk about the summit and what the United States can do to help restore democracy around the world. 

ABRAMOWITZ: Firstly, you think of traditional authoritarian countries like China and Russia. They have gotten a lot worse in the last ten to fifteen years. It's interesting about China. Ten years ago, I think China had a score of 17 in terms of political rights and civil liberties and freedom of the world. It's now down to 10. So, China had been opening up a little bit before, and now under President Xi, it's gotten even more repressive. I often remind people that when Putin took over in Russia in 2000, Russia—I believe—was a partly free country. We group countries into three categories: partly free, not free, and free. And Russia has gotten much more repressive under Putin. It has really dismantled any semblance of independent media or independent judiciary. It has cracked down on civil society. 

So, you have authoritarian countries getting worse. Then you have sort of mid-ranging countries—I think of countries like Turkey or Venezuela—who had been maybe trending more democratic that have now become more repressive. And then you have traditional democracies like the United States and a number of countries in Western Europe who are also becoming—they're still strong democracies, but their democracies weakening. We are not alone. This is a global trend, and it's something we should all be quite concerned about. 

HANNAH: You wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post arguing that this summit needs to be more than just window dressing or a photo op. Can you talk to us about that? What does President Biden and his administration need to achieve at this summit? What is the marker of success here? 

ABRAMOWITZ: Well, I think one important thing they are doing—and I want to give them credit for this because I do think the president himself has recognized at least rhetorically—and I think he believes this—that we are in kind of an existential struggle and that liberal democracy is under threat, and authoritarianism is clearly on the rise. I think the fact that the United States is trying to rally countries, other democracies, to come together and work together to kind of shore up democracy, is a good thing. And one can be quite critical of the United States for various deficits of democracy or foreign policy. But the fact is they've invited one hundred countries to this summit, and one hundred countries seem to be coming. And I think that's a sign we still have some juice in the world, that people do care, and that the United States has an ability to put focus on really important issues. So, that's an important point. 

But the other point you're getting at that I tried to make in the op-ed with my friend David Kramer—a former president of Freedom House, too—is that this should not just be an opportunity to talk about this, but an opportunity for countries like the United States to make real commitments of things they are going to do to try to improve their own democracies and to support each other over the next several years. 

HANNAH: So then, Michael, if you had ten minutes alone in the room with President Biden or Secretary Blinken ahead of the summit, what advice would you give to them? What are some concrete, practical steps they could take in order to stop this trend? 

ABRAMOWITZ: First of all, I think you have to recognize we're in a generational issue. Nothing is going to be solved by a summit. It can help put attention, but it's a long-term thing. But look, our advice, if I had ten minutes alone with President Biden or Secretary Blinken, I would say to, first of all, meet directly with the people who are fighting for freedom around the world. There are names out there, just like Sakharov during the Cold War or Solzhenitsyn or Sharansky, who are powerful moral figures, and they are on the front lines fighting for freedom in places like Belarus, Myanmar, Hong Kong, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Venezuela. It's really important for the United States to make clear that they stand fundamentally with these folks, because I do think the fact that people are still fighting for democracy suggests there is still a demand for freedom. And if Vice President Biden were to meet personally with some of these dissidents and really elevate their work, I think that's a concrete thing that would be good. 

I think one thing we found in our reports and studies is that repression has gone global. It used to be that what happened in China stayed in China, but as you saw with the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, authoritarian countries are increasingly brazen about trying to influence events beyond their borders. So, even in America, people have not been safe. There was a case recently of an Iranian dissident, and it turned out the Iranian government was trying to trick her to come back to Iran. We've documented hundreds of these kinds of cases. So, I think protecting human rights defenders who are in exile is another really important thing the administration could do. I think the third thing I would say is there are a couple of very big issues like fighting corruption and standing up for independent journalism—just to take two—that would be very good to see the administration make more of an effort in. There's a lot to do to support democracy that does not require a bayonet or a bomb. For instance, we would be very much in favor of greater use of Magnitsky-type sanctions to specifically target egregious human rights abusers. So, we think there's a lot the administration could do. I think you also have to see some greater effort on some of the important bilateral actions. We think that, for instance, the freedom the administration has given Sisi as somewhat of a pass on his really egregious human rights violations in Egypt. And so, it's important on some of these bilateral relationships that the United States work harder to stand up for democracy and human rights. I'm not saying they don't do any of this, but we would like to see more. 

HANNAH: Let's talk for a minute about America's own democracy. Doesn't the erosion of some of the institutions or traditions of American democracy stand in the way of the United States’ leading the charge to restore democracy around the globe? 

ABRAMOWITZ: Democracy over the last ten or eleven years in the United States has been eroding, and Freedom House has documented erosion of U.S. democracy from 94 points out of 100 to now 83.

Interlude featuring archival audio 

ABRAMOWITZ: There's definitely been an erosion of U.S. democracy over the last ten years, and it has cut across several administrations. It's a matter of quite of great concern to us. 

We were founded in 1941 as part of a bipartisan movement of very prominent individuals who came together to really confront the “America First” movement. The “America First” movement of that time was an isolationist movement that wanted to keep America out of the war in Europe. This was before Pearl Harbor. Unbelievably, ninety percent of Americans, according to polls, did not want to get involved in the fight against fascism. But Freedom House came together to do that in a bipartisan way, and it had people like Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie—who had run for president against Eleanor's husband in 1940—involved in the formation of Freedom House. So, we’ve always had people from both sides of the aisle. That's an important point about Freedom House. We tried to work in a nonpartisan and in a bipartisan fashion. The reason I mention that is because in the founding charter of Freedom House—which I read periodically just to remind myself of our mission—we do talk about the importance of the United States being a strong exemplar beacon of democracy. We're not just looking beyond our borders and pointing fingers at others. We're also looking at the United States itself, and over our history, we have frequently done reports or studies or statements about things happening in our own country. So, this is not a new thing for Freedom House. 

And the other point, I would say, is that our flagship report, Freedom in the World—which we've been doing since 1973—looked at every country in the world, including the United States. And that's interesting, in part—the State Department puts out a human rights report, but they don't look at the United States. But I think the fact that we look at the United States gives us a certain degree of credibility, and we look at the United States with the same standards that we look at Russia or China or Turkey or Venezuela. 

HANNAH: Let's take a break and talk about you for a minute, Michael. How did you find yourself doing this work in democracy and human rights? 

ABRAMOWITZ: It's a great question. Honestly, sometimes things run in the family. My dad was in the State Department, and when I was growing up as a kid my mom always worked for humanitarian organizations. So, they had a deep commitment to public service and an interest in these issues of making life better for people. So, I guess it's a little bit in the genes. As you say, I was a journalist for most of my professional career. That's all I thought I would ever want to do is be a journalist. And of course, journalism is fundamental to democracy. I worked on the Harvard Crimson. I went to work at the Washington Post. I covered local business and national politics, and then, for a strange set of reasons, I decided to leave the Post. I decided I really wanted to get into something that was not just observing but being more involved in the action, if you will. So, I went to the U.S. Holocaust Museum, and the Holocaust Museum has a very interesting program there called Committee on Conscience. It's now called the Center for the Prevention of Genocide. It's part of the Holocaust Museum that focused on trying to prevent genocide or put focus on the issue of modern-day genocide. And so, I ran that for a while. I ran the Holocaust Museum's education programs, and then I had the opportunity to come to Freedom House about five years ago. The opportunity to run an organization that has a very storied history and does great work today on what I think is the central, almost essential problem in the world today—the potential demise of the liberal democratic order—was just very attractive. So, I've been at Freedom House for about five years. That's the precede to my story. 

HANNAH: Freedom House has documented growing oppression and ethnic violence in not just authoritarian states, but in democracies as well. Even in democratic countries, there is still the possibility for various types of illiberalism to emerge, as we've seen within our own borders. 

ABRAMOWITZ: In many countries—authoritarian and democracies alike—you are seeing greater attacks on the other, greater attacks on minorities. I’ll give you two concrete examples. The big story in our last Freedom in the World Report was India, which is the largest democracy in the world, but under the current prime minister it has taken a very nationalistic turn. 

Interlude featuring archival audio 

ABRAMOWITZ: One of the phenomena we chronicled—and we're not the only ones—is that India's Muslim minority is being very ill-treated right now under the current regime, and that's one of the factors we look at. Then you go to their neighbor, China, and you see what's happening. Their treatment of minorities has also gotten much worse in the last ten years, punctuated by the treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province, where there is a very credible case that acts of genocide are taking place. I only mention these two cases to say that ill treatment of minorities—maybe not to the genocidal level—is a phenomenon we are seeing around many of the countries we're tracking right now. 

HANNAH: You mentioned the Magnitsky Act before. It's been a very contentious piece of legislation when it comes to especially the U.S.-Russia relationship. Talk to us for a minute about what that is and why, in your view, it has been an effective tool of promoting democracy. 

ABRAMOWITZ: The Magnitsky Act is, I think, one of the more interesting developments over the last ten years in terms of international human rights. 

Interlude featuring archival audio 

ABRAMOWITZ: Traditionally, sanctions have been imposed on countries or broad sectoral sanctions, and what the Magnitsky Act brought about is a capacity to target specific individuals who are egregious human rights abusers with targeted sanctions. This could include people who are certain oligarchs in parts of Eastern Europe who are corrupt. It could include people who violate the rights of Uyghurs or other ethnic minorities around the world. And it gives the U.S. Treasury Department the ability to target them with sanctions and deny them access to the Western financial system, which by the way, many rich human rights abuses want, as you witnessed by the amount of property some of them are buying up in London or other parts of the West. So, what you see is autocrats get really rich from plundering the state, and then they try to hide their money in the West and protect their money. I think we're just at the early stages of the use of this tool, but I think this offers the possibility of hitting the most egregious violators hard and hopefully being a deterrent to this kind of work in the future. Now, we'll see how that works. But I do believe that's a better way of punishing human rights abusers than broad, countrywide sanctions, which sometimes hurt ordinary people as well. 

HANNAH: I think that's an important point to pause at for a minute—that broad, countrywide economic sanctions can often hurt ordinary people more than the leaders of countries who are implicated in these human rights abuses. And this is something we're likely going to see more of—the sanctions. The Biden Administration just announced that in the lead up to the Democracy Summit, the Treasury will levy sanctions against individuals around the world who are, quote, “engaged in malign activities that undermine democracy and democratic institutions around the world, including corruption, repression, organized crime, and serious human rights abuses.” So, do you think, Michael, that these sanctions will have their intended effect? 

ABRAMOWITZ: I think there's anecdotal evidence. We work around the world with a lot of human rights activists, and one thing we hear in certain cases is that they've been able to go to individuals in some of the autocratic countries and say, “By the way, if you do this, you may find yourself on a sanction list.” And I'm told that some can sometimes have a deterrent effect. I would not go too far with that, but I do believe in the end this is a much more useful tool than, as you say, the broader—I'm not saying broad economic sanctions aren’t sometimes justified. That's a huge debate, as you say, and there's some evidence on both sides about that. But I think everyone can agree—and I think that's one of the interesting things about the Magnitsky Act: that it had a strong support from both Republicans and Democrats. And Magnitsky style legislation is now being adopted in other countries like the UK and others. So, I do think this has potential to be a very powerful human rights tool in the future 

HANNAH: As the United States heads into the summit. Many of our listeners could be wondering about America's credibility to be a leader of democracy on the world stage again. And that's not just because of some of this erosion of democracy we've seen in the U.S., but because of the association of democracy promotion as a concept with America's policy failures in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. 

ABRAMOWITZ: Well, let me say this. I do think democracy promotion is wrongly conflated with military intervention. Take Afghanistan and Iraq—which are the two big examples, but people also mention Libya. There's a lot of debate about whether or not those interventions were wise. I think there's a strong case, with the benefit of hindsight, that they were not wise. I think it's hard and probably not wise to try to impose democracy at the point of a gun. However, at Freedom House, when we talk about democracy promotion, we are never really talking about military intervention. We believe there's a lot of soft power and diplomatic and economic tools that can be employed on behalf of supporting democracy and human rights. We did a whole report—which I would recommend to your listeners—with the McCain Institute and CSIS, another Washington think tank, that came out in the first few months of the new administration, and it cataloged dozens of different ideas about things the new administration could do—and other governments, presumably—to help support democracy. And I think particularly, going back to the point we made a few minutes ago, supporting human rights defenders is a major piece. What I have found is that people in other countries want the right to fight for democracy themselves. They're not asking, but they're just asking for our solidarity and our support. But the fight is theirs, and we have to support them. 

HANNAH: Michael Abramowitz, thank you so much for joining us. 

ABRAMOWITZ: Thanks for having me. I enjoyed it. 

HANNAH: I'm Mark Hannah, and this has been another episode of None of the Above, a podcast of the Eurasia Group Foundation. I want to give a special thanks to our None of the Above team who make all of this possible. Thanks go out to our producer Caroline Gray, our associate producer and editor Luke Taylor, and Lucas Robinson for his research support. Music and mixing was done by Zubin Hensler. If you enjoyed what you've heard, we'd appreciate you subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or anywhere else you find podcasts. Rate and review us, and if there's a topic you want us to cover, send us an email at info@noneoftheabovepodcast.org. Thanks for joining us. Stay safe out there, and see you next time. 

More Episodes
Episode 13: The Chainsaw Effect
Season 5
Episode 13: The Chainsaw Effect
Season 5

Javier Milei and the Disruption of Argentina’s Politics 

Season 5
Episode 12: The Hell of Bad Assumptions
Season 5
Episode 12: The Hell of Bad Assumptions
Season 5

Lessons from Afghanistan

Season 5
Episode 11: Hubris in Haiti
Season 5
Episode 11: Hubris in Haiti
Season 5

Ambassador Dan Foote on Learning from America’s Failures

Season 5
Episode 10: War Stories (from the archive)
Season 5
Episode 10: War Stories (from the archive)
Season 5

Brooke Gladstone and Fred Kaplan on the Media, War, and Ukraine

Season 5
Episode 9: Anchored Insight
Season 5
Episode 9: Anchored Insight
Season 5

Anchored Insight

Season 5
Bonus Episode
Season 5
Bonus Episode
Season 5

Israel’s Complicated Relationship with Human Rights

Season 5
 
 
 
Season 3Mark Hannah