Topic: Authoritarianism and Democracy
Country: Russia
Delegate Name: Collin Sharpe
School: Royal Oak High School
Topic page: background guide and all position papers All Russia position papers GLIMUN 2017 committees
Around the world, the practical and moral superiority of the classical model of democracy is being questioned. Its notable successes stand now alongside its greatest failures, while authoritarian development models have created some of the world’s most prosperous societies today. It has become increasingly clear that neither model is an indicator of success or failure in development; rather, it is the situation of a country that determines a model’s applicability. Other parts of a country’ political economy, such as economic and political stability, are far stronger factors in developmental success. With this in mind, the international community has now renewed the debate on the merits of democracy.
Russia’s system is, of course, democratic. Its leaders are elected, and its policies are thus decided by the will of the people. It fully understands the merits of a democratic system. It firmly believes that democracy is the ideal we should strive to reach. But it also recognizes that the world is not Russia – that imposing a cookie-cutter model of development that worked for one state or group of states onto another region of the world is both impractical and dangerous. The failures of the Soviet Union in exporting socialism, as well as the vain attempts of the United States at “nation-building” in the states they invaded have taught us this, but it seems that not all the world took notes on history’s lessons. The success of any model of political economy, however sound its theoretical foundations, is always determined by its situation. It is as ridiculous to ask for a completely free press in a country mired in civil war in the name of some abstract ideal of expression as it is to ask Germany to not ban the Nazi Party in the name of political diversity. These and similar proposals would all have disastrous consequences, and yet the abstract theory of democracy demands them.
Democracy is a worthy ideal strive for. But we must recognize that our ideals are just that. They are separated from the reality. This is not the Acropolis. This is not a place for discussing philosophy. What is important in a discussion about them in a policymaking body is how the theories are actually applied in the real world. And much to the consternation of the proponents of either system, neither model wins in the empirical data. No measure of development, whether it be political stability, economic growth, or poverty reduction, suggests a better system across the globe, only better systems for different situations, which vary widely across our 193 member states. It is clear that allowing more political participation in a country is not always healthy and conducive to development, and the same is true for restricting it. Neither model is inherently superior to the other; it all depends on where one is.
Once we move past this Cold War way of thinking, the committee’s vision can become clearer, and focus on the obstacles to development that matter. In contrast to the little to no correlation between regime type and development, political and economic stability are two of the most important factors of development. While cases of instability may occasionally partly stem from economic mismanagement, we must remember that there are some things that affect us beyond government control. Religious and political extremism, civil wars, and disease are all examples of instability caused by a source outside a government. They must be dealt with if we are to have a world that reaches its highest potential.
At the same time, we must remember that we live in an interdependent and globalized world. Our actions affect others. The policies we pursue can often become obstacles to development beyond our borders. Attempts at coups d’etats are engines of instability, are illegally encouraged by other states unfortunately often. Such a thing has happened in Syria, ripping apart the fabric of its economy and destroying decades of developmental progress. Sanctions, such as the illegal and unwarranted measures against the Russian Federation by the United States and others are disruptive to economic stability and development as well.
But if neither the democratic or authoritarian model is superior or universal, what is a committee centered around debating these models to do? How can we help each other overcome the universal obstacles to development without imposing a model different from what each country has? How can we work to remove the obstacles to development we ourselves have caused?
The committee’s resolution, to answer these questions, must do three things. The first is simple and effortless: we must recognize the self-evident principle that the world is diverse and polycentric, and therefore that there is not a single superior or universal model for any class of country. The second, a necessary product of the first, is a shift in focus. We must assist each other in development, and create a way to better rid themselves of stability and other developmental stumbling blocks, rather than condemning them for having a model that does not conform to one’s own. The third is to recognize our own responsibility for instability in other countries, and to create a system for addressing developmental grievances that excludes no country.
Of course, all of these solutions must follow the principles of international cooperation and law. They must be inclusive of all countries and development models and be based and mutual respect. Just as importantly, it must never condemn a country’s model or try to force a country to change, an approach that has time and time again proven unproductive and will undermine the international system’s credibility if used. In the past, discussions on this topic end with a praise of one system and a condemnation of the other, which accomplished nothing but animosity. It doesn’t have to be that way. Together, we can focus instead on working together towards a common development. Russia looks forward to working productively with this committee.
