Following weeks of protest in the Maldives, President Mohamed Nasheed resigned. Initially, he was popular among the voters on the islands. He won the presidency through competitive, multiparty elections; the first elections after a 30-year autocratic rule.
The article on The Guardian describes the Maldives as a “fresh democracy” because the contested elections only happened four years ago. Based on the concepts explained by Collier and Levitsky, this article seems to apply the procedural minimum definition – assuming that a democracy involves competitive elections, full suffrage, and unhindered civil liberties. It indicates that the fine line between autocracy and multiparty elections reflect a transition to democracy. Although Collier and Levitsky also distinguish autocracy from democracy as opposing, or mutually exclusive, concepts, multiparty elections simply does not show that a country is a full, proper democracy. On the ladder of generality, the term “fresh democracy” with reference to the Maldivian political system characteristics would rank high. The Guardian uses few defining attributes to refer to democracy in the Maldives, meaning that a “fresh democracy” with recent multiparty elections can be applied to many cases of democracy. Nonetheless, we have to be aware that President Nasheed ordered a military arrest of the court chief judge Abdulla Mohamed after Mohamed called for a release of a government critic. Protests followed, with military troops firing bullets at the police. Human rights issue is being discussed as many people believe that the arrest of the judge was unnecessary. Evidently, a high position on the ladder of generality in describing the democracy in the Maldives shows an extent of conceptual stretching. Even though there were fair elections, the government still practices its power to arrest those that think differently, and employs the military to fight protestors. Should “democracy” be applied to a country like this? It is only a matter of defining how this “fresh democracy” exemplifies democratic ideals without conceptual stretching.
In other news, Syria has been experiencing some serious domestic conflicts that the whole world is watching over. This article from Huffington Post calls Syria an “illiberal democracy” because, although the Syrian president was elected, the Syrian population basically have no civilian liberties. The oppressive Assad regime has used violence against civilians protesting the government, and, as a result, thousands of people have been killed. Even though many international organizations, including the United Nations and the Arab League, have attempted to take Assad out of power, so far there has been minimal success. The Assad regime is using military forces to continue abusing its power on civilians, and denying any objections from foreign actors – calling it a breach of Syrian sovereignty. According to Collier and Levitsky, “illiberal democracy” is a diminished subtype of democracy. It is true that Syria held elections, like any democracy would. It would definitely fit under the term “electoral regime”, which is high up on the ladder of generality. As we proceed down the ladder toward conceptual differentiation, Syria’s connection to the root concept of democracy decreases. Given the condition in Syria right now, it would definitely be contested as a full democracy. Conceptual differentiation helps understand that Syria, although it possesses democratic aspects, is a subtype of democracy because civilians have little to no liberties.