By Victoria Starbuck, Staff Writer

Published in print Apr. 8, 2015

In his pamphlet, “Common Sense,” Thomas Paine referred to government as ranging from a necessary to an intolerable evil. He concludes that democracy is dependent upon the involvement of all citizens—if all do not exercise their democratic rights, how long until a regime disintegrates?

The third wave of democracy, occurring in the latter portion of the twentieth century, saw a movement taking the percentage of democratic countries around the globe from below the fifty percent marker to above. However, the steady incline in the amount of countries adopting a democratic form of governing has depleted, leaving some scholars to wonder if we are witnessing a reversal of democracy across the globe.

For UNCG Professor Fabrice Lehoucq, this argument is null. The waves of democracy are referred to as such for a reason; the patterns of increase and lull in democracy mirror the ebb and flow movements of the ocean. The third wave of democracy was a result of Latin American countries returning to democracy in the 1970’s, and Eastern European countries experimenting with political forms after the fall of the Soviet Union.

But some critics are suspicious of the plateau in the percentage of democracies across the globe. They point to the backsliding of key places such as Russia and Turkey, noting that these nations were unable to sustain democracy. In addition, they point to the global deterioration of democracy.

Electoral authoritarian regimes, which feign democracy to withhold power from the opposing party, can barely be considered within the parameters of egalitarian rule. These regimes use tactics such as gerrymandering, overrepresentation, restricting the rights of assembly, adding extra difficulties for certain types of voters to register, and manipulating the media to maintain control within their party.   

Mild chuckles echoed throughout the lecture hall as Lehoucq outlined typical strategies used by electoral authoritarian regimes to stay in power—some even present within the borders of the United States.

As Lehoucq noted, the United States could not be considered democratic until the mid-1960’s because it “excluded African Americans from the franchise.” In addition, a voter tax limited the ability of poorer people to participate in elections until the Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections Supreme Court ruling in 1965 found the tax unconstitutional.

The United States ranks around seventeenth or eighteenth on The Economist’s list of most democratic countries in the world. The most influential factors for the lower placement of America on this scale are the restriction on civil rights created by the Patriot Act and the low voter turnout.

Lehoucq notes that one of the greatest issues facing democracy today is the malaise epidemic that is striking governments throughout the globe. He uses this term, “malaise,” to refer to the decline in voter turnout.

Only 36.4 percent of American citizens participated in the 2014 midterm election. While various factors within the United States contribute to a low voter turnout, the greatest (and what Lehoucq illustrates as possibly the most dangerous) is apathy.

An increased amount of citizens do not identify with any party. Others blame politicians for economic hardships. The greatest sin of the apathetic citizen is that she does not read the newspaper. But whatever the cause, a lack of desire or interest to exercise simple democratic rights such as voting upsets the ability of the government to perform in a proper manner.

Although the United States political system has issues, Lehoucq does not foresee a major change within the next five to ten years. Shared characteristics between America and electoral authoritarian regimes point to problems to be fixed rather than the beginnings of demise. Like the third wave of democracy, the current political forestallments in America are not indicative of dissolution.