Democracy has become a common form of government around the world, but increasingly, questions are being raised about its effectiveness.
Are ballot boxes essential in achieving true democracy and fulfilling people’s aspirations for freedom and prosperity? Can democracy be realised through the adoption of experiences and systems from other nations? Moreover, are all individuals equally equipped to participate in the practice of democracy?
The concept of democracy in international relations and law has evolved over time. In the modern era, its early stages took place after the First World War with the Wilsonian concept of national sovereignty, which called for self-determination.
This idea laid the groundwork for the development of democratic principles on a global scale, emphasising the importance of allowing nations to govern themselves and make decisions free from external influence. Over time, these principles have been refined and expanded, shaping the modern understanding of democracy in the international arena.
In the 1910s, US president Woodrow Wilson regarded democracy as a fundamental and universal principle, intrinsically linked to the people’s ability to freely determine their political, economic, social and cultural trajectories. After the Second World War, numerous international instruments have referred to the principles of democracy.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 asserted that everyone has the right to participate directly or indirectly in the political activities of their country. Similarly, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1976 underscored these democratic principles. The same year, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights elaborated upon the features of democratic societies in Articles 14, 21, and 22.
These principles were echoed three decades later at the 2005 World Summit, which supported development, peace and collective security, human rights and the strengthening of the UN. UN General Assembly Resolution 60/1 (2005) emphasised respect for state sovereignty, but it did not mandate a single model of democracy.
The UN has recognised democracy as a fundamental pillar in maintaining international peace and security, as well as upholding justice and promoting human rights. The General Assembly consistently emphasises the importance of democracy for human prosperity. However, from a legal standpoint, international law does not mandate a specific political system in order for a government to be considered legitimate. Non-elected governments are not inherently in violation of international law.
During the French Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, the first US secretary of state, wrote to his ambassador in Paris regarding the French change of government: “We surely cannot deny to any nation that right whereon our government is founded that everyone may govern itself according to whatever form it pleases, and change these forms at its own will and that it may transact its business with foreign nations through whatever organ it thinks proper, whether king, convention, assembly, committee, president or anything else that it may choose, this will of the nation is the only thing essential to be regarded.”
Under international law, internationally recognised states are sovereign nations that are free and independent, having the exclusive authority to establish a government that aligns with their unique internal circumstances.
The determination of the legality or illegality of government formations falls within the realm of domestic law. There is no clear indication that military coups or revolutions are illegal in international law, while the government’s constitutionality is not a prerequisite for establishing legal recognition.
Various factors can influence whether international recognition is granted or withheld, including domestic circumstances, political dynamics and strategic considerations. The lack of recognition by other nations may restrict a state’s legal standing, but it does not completely invalidate it, as the acknowledgment of a government is not a determining factor in the continuity of statehood.
Each nation is characterised by its distinct values, traditions, beliefs and challenges. Imposing the systems, values and narratives of one nation on to another may not necessarily yield positive results. This principle is akin to prescribing the same medicine for different illnesses; what works for one may not be effective for another, and such an approach could lead to catastrophic consequences.
It is essential to recognise and respect the unique context of each nation to foster genuine understanding and effective solutions.
Democracy is a weapon, one that can do good when wielded properly, and cause harm under the inexperienced. And it is a remedy, one that many can rely on to counteract malice, but lethal in the wrong dose.
The essence of democracy lies not in the mere act of voting but in the broader context of self-determination and the ability of people to shape their destiny. It is a dynamic and evolving concept that must be tailored to the unique circumstances of each nation, respecting their sovereignty and the will of their people. Only then can democracy truly fulfil its promise of freedom and prosperity for all.
