Democracies that aren’t

In our current international system, democracies are often favored. Such a governmental system carries weight, allows its citizens personal freedoms and is respected by other states. Not all democracies are created equal, however. A number of states masquerade as democracies, but are closer to authoritarian structures instead.

 A fake democracy is not uncommon, and elements are similar across the board. Usually, a state with a facade of democracy has a number of political parties, but one holds the most influence in elections and political decisions. This is the case in Russia, where President Putin’s United Russia party is the most powerful, despite the presence of others.

The legitimacy of elections goes hand in hand with the presence of political parties. In order to ensure success in presidential or parliamentary elections, fake democratic states must outline elections carefully. Rigging elections can occur; suspiciously high levels of popularity are often a sign of wrongdoing. We need not look farther than Saddam Hussein taking 100 percent of the votes in 2002.

But in order to avoid critique from the international community on the status of elections, internationally recognized institutions that comment on the legitimacy of elections must be in place -- and often they are in the pocket of the ruling party.

These corrupt election monitors are referred to in international politics as “zombie monitors.” They include such organizations as the Commonwealth of Independent States Election Monitoring Organization and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. By declaring elections lawful, such bodies feed incomplete or fake democracies, allowing them to remain superficially legitimate. Zombie monitors have been instrumental in the Azerbaijani presidential election from October 2013 and the Crimean referendum from March 2014, as well as elections in Burma and Zimbabwe.  

Media also plays a significant role in establishing the legitimacy of fake democracies. State-owned media sources like RT in Russia allow the government to portray itself and its actions in a favorable light, both to the citizens and the international community. As government-owned news sources gain legitimacy, so does the fake democracy.

This practice is not uncommon, and there are strong incentives to follow such a model. First, in an international system significantly influenced by western democracies, being a respected democracy opens doors for cooperation with other such states. But being a true democracy is challenging and rulers risk losing control in legitimate elections. The aim is to look like a democracy to the outside world, but limit the chance of losing elections. Thus, a state that resembles a liberal democracy but allows the controlling body to hold the majority of power seeks out this model in order to gain international legitimacy while mitigating risk.

However, as fake democracies stand, it becomes harder to build a true democracy. Rulers are unwilling to give up power, and while there is room to remove them from power, the process is convoluted and success is not necessarily guaranteed. This is true in Russia, where parties like Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s Open Russia party will try to infiltrate elections but may still struggle to gain positions in government because of anti-campaigning laws. Just because a state has political elections does not mean that the opposition can find a foothold in political processes -- a key element of a true democracy.

There are limitations on any democracy, and there are many ways to categorize such states, resulting in a varying number of "democracies" in the current international system. Regardless, the presence of states impersonating democracies is undeniable. Until states are held responsible to uphold democratic institutions, the personal freedoms of their citizens are at risk.