Should democracy dominate the world?

With a widely criticized prime minister and a poor 61 per cent turnout in the 2005 elections, the British political system seems to be no longer convincing. Still, Harold Gafo believes: “Every country in the world should adopt multiparty, parliamentary democracy as its political system as a matter of urgency.” It appears that Mr Gafo is suffering from some outdated Eurocentrism.
For western Europeans the benefits of our system are obvious. A democracy, any democracy, comprises more than just the right to vote in elections. The power is balanced by the many freedoms its inhabitants enjoy, most importantly freedom of speech and information. These freedoms effectively reflect public opinion and put pressure on politicians.
An additional benefit of the multiparty parliamentary system is that power is shared on all levels: between the functions of president or monarch and prime minister; institutionally between senates and parliaments; and ideologically between parties within the parliament and, in case of a coalition, the government.
A multiparty system is an effective way to represent the whole electorate. More people have a chance to participate actively in politics and there are more possibilities to vote for a party close to your own beliefs. After all, it is not the voter’s job to compromise. Furthermore, the presence of a parliament ensures that the parties in opposition have power according to their size. Even small parties can represent their voters, especially in a proportional election system, and, however small their influence is, this reflects the true meaning of the word democracy.
The downside of a multiparty parliament is the risk of endless discussion and compromises without strong decision-making. It may not even go as far as compromises and just lead to competition. This disadvantage became visible in recent European elections. After the votes were counted in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, it proved difficult to form a majority coalition of parties that are willing to cooperate. This could lead to disillusion and disinterest among the voters, a mood that was already present in the 2005 British elections.
However, despite of the apparent weakness in many current European governments and elections, the problems lie with individual politicians rather than within the system. A democratic, but unattractive alternative is a system as we see in the United States. Here the highest power lies with one leader and one party has the chance of dominating the whole political spectrum, while a big minority remains unrepresented.
Thus far, Mr Gafo has a point. Between all democracies, the multiparty parliamentary system does the best job in representing all people and balancing the power. The here disputed part of Mr Gafo’s statement concerns not the system, but the point that all countries in the world should adopt it as a matter of urgency. This idea, that what is good for Europe should be good for the rest of the world, is as old as European civilisation, yet highly questionable.
Democracy stems from a western body of thought and needs a certain foundation. Democracies and parliaments in western countries did not arise within one day; they developed over centuries. Like here, other countries will need a stable basis, a certain level of economy, mature parties and the right motives before any kind of democratic system can work.
The time has come for western powers to drop their view that a multiparty democracy is the only valid system of government. Especially economically weak and highly divided countries might be better of with a strong central leadership. India is a striking example of a multiparty democratic country where ideological plurality has led to competition rather than effective decisions. In the People’s Republic of China, on the other hand, a central one party system has brought an explosive economic development. China’s political system has been to the expense of democratic freedoms the people in India do enjoy, but most people consider prosperity and stability to be more urgent needs. Indeed, learning from China’s steady political reforms, we can conclude that democratic freedoms are following economic growth, and this is likely to happen in other developing countries too.

Our job is to support this economic development, instead of slowing it down by putting too much pressure on political reform. You cannot have it all in once.

Note: this article is written in New Statesman leader style and is meant to present the New Stateman's view, not my personal opinions.