Dealing with authoritarian governments

Autocratic governments are quite diverse. Some rely on ideology, others on religious faith or ethnic identity. Some are organised like monarchies and rooted in tradition, while others manage to stay in power thanks to economic success. Many authoritarian rulers resort to repression, limit civic liberties and restrict the scope for popular participation in public affairs.

Despotic regimes are a huge challenge for donor governments, as became evident during a panel discussion, which focused on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and was held at the German Development Institute (GDI/DIE) in September. Die SDG agenda itself can be read as a response to autocratic rule, according to GDI/DIE scholar Julia Leininger. The SDGs can serve as yardsticks for assessing political processes internationally. For instance, they promote the establishment of effective and accountable institutions that are geared to social inclusion. Moreover, they endorse participatory decision-making at all levels.

To what extent those standards are met in practice is a different question. It is important to take into account local settings and historical backgrounds. Ghanaian scholar Emmanuel Gyimah-Boadi emphasises that autocratic rule was the norm in Africa for a long time, and that despotic leaders can be reformers. Rwanda is an example, where economic progress is considered as evidence of a regime’s success.  

The panelists agreed that dealing with autocratic governments requires a lot of sensitivity, beginning with the choice of words: it is often unwise to point out that a government is “autocratic”.

Scholars argue that international partners are well advised to engage in dialogue with civil-society organisations in the countries concerned. They warn, however, that fanatics and populists can also form independent organisations. For example, this is currently the case in Tunisia, where autocratic rule has given way to a fragile democracy after the Arab spring revolution of 2011. Sometimes, governments sponsor formally independent organisations with radical leanings. The scholars want development agencies to pay attention to these matters.

The governance standards of the SDGs are loosely defined so there is ample scope for interpretation. However, ambiguousness is not necessarily bad, as Leiniger and her GDI/DIE-colleague Kai Striebinger argue in a recently published column. Ambiguousness is helpful to reconcile diverging democratic traditions, from municipal self-government to referendums.

Global challenge

Unlike the previous Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the SDGs apply to all nations rather than only to developing countries. Democratic culture, moreover, has recently become a hot topic in Europe and North America. Governmental repression and populist parties are the reason. Recent developments in Turkey, for example, are worrisome. 

All too often, democratic governments support autocratic ones. For example, the USA is cooperating with authoritarian rulers in the Middle East. Robtel Neajai Pailey, a Liberian migration expert at Oxford University, demands that democracy-preaching leaders of high-income countries must pay careful attention to whom they are supporting.

According to Pailey, political and business networks are complex. Transnational links matter, and so do diaspora communities. She says one result of migration is that a country’s citizens do not all live within its borders. Policymaking should take that into account.   

Lea Diehl

Reference

Striebinger, K., and Leininger, J., 2016: Umgang mit Autokratien: Helfen die globalen Nachhaltigkeitsziele? Aktuelle Kolumne vom 19.9.2016. Bonn: Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (in German).
https://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/Deutsches_Institut_fuer_Entwicklungspolitik_Striebinger_Leiniger_19.09.2016.pdf