Survival of Autocrats vs. Modernization and Information Technology Revolution

Watch it on the NIICE Nepal YouTube channel

EVENT REPORT

This webinar featured Prof. Adam Prezwoski, an Emeritus from the University of New York, USA, who delivered a lecture on “Survival of Autocrats vs. Modernization and Information Technology Revolution.” Prezwoski begins with a sound assertion that contrary to popular belief, economic and social modernization does not generally increase the probability of a shift to democratic governance or the fall of autocratic regimes. It is a supplement to the essence of the lecture, where Prezwoski talked about the survival of democracy and emphasized the role of elections as a mechanism for processing conflicts.

Democracy has always been measured in extrinsic and intrinsic values, such as social equality or choosing who governs. However, according to the speaker, its greatest strength lies in its ability to process conflict without political repression for all citizens. In a democracy, the winners decide the rules, while the opponents reserve the right to criticize the government and turn the tide in the next election. Therefore, even if elections come with their own set of shortcomings, but they also generate conditions of peace. Prezwoski discusses several bullet points to support his hypothesis, including the rules that apply to the conduct of both winners and losers to build a state of equilibrium where peace persists.

Prezwoski balances his theoretical argument with factual data about the newness, rareness and fragility of democratic governance. There have been several documented cases of democracies being established but also swiftly overthrown due to military coups. At the same time, superpower giants of the 21st century, China and Russia, have yet to establish a democratic regime in its truest sense. However, democracies do survive in countries with higher incomes, as well as countries that experience peaceful exchange of offices after elections due to the belief that the losing party can win again in later elections.

Democratic backsliding is brought up in this context, where existing governments undertake policies and initiatives to make it almost impossible for opposition parties to come to power. While this claim is not backed by enough evidence to lead to statistical generalisations, there are several prominent examples of this phenomenon, such as in India. High income and peaceful power exchange are also not restraints against backsliding, such as in the USA. Certain sections of the voter base also support this backsliding for the sake of their own religious and racist ideologies.

During the discussion round, Prezwoski deliberated on how autocratic regimes not only survived but also thrived compared to their democratic peers and the exaggeration of fears surrounding the development of artificial intelligence. He shared his insights on how experiments to increase the political participation of individuals in the decision-making process, such as citizen assemblies or referendums, have yet to be successful. There is a need to explore alternative mechanisms to help political parties organise and aggregate interests and transfer them into a political hierarchy. He also reiterated his initial view that while democracies have a higher chance of surviving in wealthier countries, comparative studies of various nations suggest that it is not a given either. The same applies to the view that modernization is a stepping stone to democracy and a shift from autocracy. Similarly, technological development cannot be linked to the sustenance of one form of governance; it can be a tool for surveillance for autocratic regimes, as well as a tool of organisation for opponents in democratic regimes.

The webinar ended with a keynote of thanks to Prof. Prezwoski, as well as the participants of the discussion board.

Prepared by Shreya Das, NIICE Intern