Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

Our democracy recession

Only 20 percent of the world’s population is “free”

One week before key world leaders gathered in Cornwall, England, for the first G7 meeting of advanced economies in two years, another unnoticed but landmark gathering began not far away in London.

The independent Uyghur Tribunal was a different sort of effort to promote human flourishing through free and open societies. It didn’t major on tea with the royal family or fist bumps among vaccinated wealthy-nation leaders, but highlighted the value of a free society by showing what happens where freedom is lost.

The testimony documented the Chinese Communist Party’s blatant atrocities against the country’s ethnic Uyghurs, who are mostly Muslims. Sir Geoffrey Nice, a British prosecutor who has presided over war crimes trials before, said what he heard from the tribunal’s first panel of witnesses was “indescribable.”

One nurse at a hospital in Xinjiang province said she saw Chinese doctors perform five forced abortions a day on Uyghurs. “Some babies were born, and they started crying and from this we knew they were alive,” she said. “But we knew all babies would be given the injection so we knew they would die before they got home.”

A former Uyghur detainee recounted wires pushed into his penis. Another wrapped himself in chains before the watching tribunal to show how Chinese authorities beat him and hung him from a ceiling.

These testimonies are the tip of the iceberg, according to a new dataset from the Oxus Society. It documents 1,151 cases of Uyghurs detained in countries outside China. That represents a black network of co-opted states rendering or extraditing Uyghurs back to China—a country that’s no rogue nation but among the world’s wealthiest, once welcomed to the G7 summits.

Such assaults are part of what Freedom House calls the world’s “democratic recession.” Its annual report is a flagship barometer that has tracked global trends for more than 40 years. The 2021 findings marked the 15th consecutive year of decline in global freedom—the largest downturn ever recorded—and summarizes: “The long democratic recession is deepening.”

China and Russia lead the charge, according to Freedom House, “cheering the breakdown of democracy and exacerbating it.” The report highlights declines also in Hong Kong, Belarus, Ethiopia, Algeria, and Turkey. Meanwhile dictators from Venezuela to Cambodia have exploited the pandemic to restrict liberties.

The report shows gains in freedom in diverse countries like Malawi, Taiwan, Montenegro, and Bolivia. Yet its conclusion is staggering: “Less than 20 percent of the world’s population now lives in a Free country, the smallest proportion since 1995.”

Besides a drastic rise in authoritarian rule, the report attributes declines in freedom to “the fading and inconsistent presence of major democracies on the international stage.” Democracy is failing not because it doesn’t work, but because its most prominent practitioners aren’t doing enough to protect it.

India’s ruling Hindu nationalist party targets Muslims and Christians. Europe is awash in statist bureaucracy while witnessing a rise in nationalism, with divides some compare to the rise of Hitler in the 1930s. The United States is gridlocked by partisan divisions, too, with democracy weakening as Democrats move further left into socialism and Republicans to nationalist Trumpism. The United States lost points in the Freedom House index for its lack of transparency, corruption, and the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol, which disrupted congressional certification of election results.

Democracy is not our idol, just a demonstrably better system of government than all the others. It’s also hard. “Democracy in its essence is kind of improbable,” said author Anne Applebaum recently. “It demands things of human beings that are almost inhuman.” Election winners sustain institutions that allow their opponents to beat them next time. Compromise on all sides is essential. “All that demands this incredibly high level of consensus as well as a shared reality,” Applebaum said.

Recovering shared reality and shared truth in America is perhaps the most pressing hard work. This Independence Day, seeing the dread dangers in all the alternatives can spur that work. It’s great work for Christians, who stake their freedom in Christ, whether living in a democracy or an authoritarian state.

Mindy Belz

Mindy wrote WORLD Magazine’s first cover story in 1986 and went on to serve as international editor, editor, and senior editor. She has covered wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Africa, and the Balkans, and she recounts some of her experiences in They Say We Are Infidels: On the Run From ISIS With Persecuted Christians in the Middle East. Mindy resides with her husband, Nat, in Asheville, N.C.



Please wait while we load the latest comments...


Please register, subscribe, or login to comment on this article.

Bob W

In his work "Politics", Aristotle argued:
"Rule by the many is a republic (i.e., rule by representation) in its proper form, and in its degenerate form is a democracy (literally “mob rule,” where the citizens make all decisions directly).
This last seems odd to us today, since we are conditioned to think of democracy as a good thing. But Aristotle, who had lived through Athenian democracy, knew its pitfalls. He recognized what we today describe as mob psychology, that people in crowds act more out of passion than reason. The danger is that a demagogue (literally a “mob leader” ) would stir the passions of the crowd so that they acted out of emotion, not reason. "
-- "Slaying Leviathan" p46 (Glenn Sunshine, 2020)


Well, no, and I do not see any comparability in danger to democracy as with Democrat socialism, CRT, class-warfare, anti-federalist, and constitutional assaults. I did not vote for him in the 2016 primaries, but Trump's is the first administration to follow through on many things that supposedly have long defined the GOP but were really only empty rhetoric - including requiring NATO members to pay as agreed into their own defense (not ending support for NATO - that is an inaccurate statement -and the Iran deal and Paris accords were appropriately withdrawn). Reducing our corporate tax rate and enabling energy independence rankled other countries but helped democracy in the US, support for the democratic state of Israel and achievements in Mideast peace, acting on Planned Parenthood, working against the prioritization of LGBTQ+ that has been turned on full force by the Biden administration all were good for America. I didn't agree with Trump on Christian refugees among other things, and Trump is not a Christian by his fruits - but that wasn't a choice we had, and I believe much of the divisiveness attributed to him was actually reaction to his appropriate actions and policies.


I think BLW asks a relevant question. We should all be pretty clear from political science what is meant by socialism. My guess is that "nationalist Trumpism" could be defined as making an idol of Donald Trump, as if he embodies the best of democracy.


Dear Ms. Belz: Please define "nationalist Trumpism" and then explain how it threatens democracy specifically with examples. I believe you are creating a false equivalency here. There was no greater threat to democracy than the opposition reaction of misuse of government law enforcement in the Russia collusion story and misuse of impeachment, and corruption of election procedures by the Democrat party. I'm not making an idol out of the GOP - but there is not equivalency in the actions of the parties in recent years.

Mindy BelzBLW

Pretty sure we all know what "nationalist Trumpism" means. And I am speaking here broadly of the current trends, or movements in each party, that Democrats are more and more willing to embrace new forms of state control (policing speech, for example) while Republicans are more willing to embrace Trump-era policies that did not define the GOP prior to his ascendance, i.e., on refugees and immigrants, ending support for NATO and other collective security arrangements, and the general rhetoric used by Trump and embraced by his supporters. We could argue perhaps about the particulars and the 'whys' of Trump nationalism, but in this case I'm merely acknowledging its presence as a change agent on the right.