Moscow, Red Square, St. Basil's Cathedral
The previous letter proposed to unite all free countries under a single defence alliance, like NATO, in order to prevent a dictatorship from attacking any of them. This would avoid a new Russia-Ukraine war in which a free country, but not a member of any military alliance, would have to defend itself alone against a more powerful dictatorship, risking its own demise. Such an organization would make it possible to avoid a decrease in the number of free countries around the world.
However, this defensive umbrella does not solve the problem of the rise of dictators from within these democracies. There are indeed citizens in all countries of the world who are obsessed with this sombre ambition.
Should we be concerned about this? Experience shows us that without solid institutions whose foundations need to be broadly supported by the citizens, the violent overpower the peaceful, the cheaters rob the honest, the profiteers abuse the naive.
For these odious characters, to monopolize political power and to exercise it for their own benefit, in a brutal way, is their ultimate goal. They devote all their efforts to it. They destroy all those who oppose them. No cruelty stops them. Truth itself is not an effective bulwark against them; the history of mankind abounds with faithless and lawless tyrants.
What is new, however, is that at the end of the 18th century, new institutions appeared; they flourished and somewhat reversed this tendency.
The nascent United States had taken the lead in this movement. They gave themselves institutions and a written constitution that could stand up to these poisoners. Freedom was taking an unexpected flight. Two hundred and thirty years and 56 presidential elections later, a dictator has never been able to hold that office.
Of course, the strength of institutions soaked in the fire of a turbulent history has done much to reinforce them. The United States boasts a separation of the executive and judicial branches of government, which, while not completely watertight, ensures independence of the judiciary, crucial for arbitrating the sometimes violent disputes of opposing parties.
And today, according to the Freedom House, more than 80 of the 200 or so countries enjoy such enviable freedom. Modern free countries do not claim to be perfect, but they provide their citizens with freedom to express themselves and flourish. And even if the path to reach this ideal remains long, winding and full of pitfalls, this is still our hope today.
It must be remembered, however, that unfortunately this future can unexpectedly be destroyed, even in those countries that have managed to fulfill it. The road to freedom goes both ways; what has been achieved remains fragile. The wind can blow away this delicate blossom.
There is much to be said on this subject, but I will stick to the method of amending constitutions, since this is a very common entry point for potential autocrats.
In the United States, for an amendment to pass, it requires the approval of 75 percent of the states and 60 percent of elected officials in each of the two houses of the Federal Congress. So it is possible to amend it. They have done so 26 times in their history. But it is difficult, as the Founding Fathers intended.
In their case, a referendum could not alter it in any way. But unfortunately, elsewhere in the world, many countries have adopted this method of validation for their own amendments, even though this method can and is often manipulated by those who want to change it to their advantage.
The rise of Vladimir Putin is particularly eloquent in this regard. After the fall of the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1991, Russia adopted a modern constitution based on the presidential model, inspired by practices used in many countries.
Vladimir Putin could not serve more than two consecutive terms. In order to stay in power, he had to first circumvent this term limit for the office of president.
This model also comes from the United States. The first 31 presidents of that country never held office for more than eight years, or two four-year terms. But this limit was merely a “precedent” set by the first president, George Washington, and respected by subsequent presidents. The 32nd president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, decided in 1940 to ignore this precedent and won four presidential elections in a row.
His decision to disregard this tradition led to the adoption of the 22nd Amendment in 1947, which limited the election of a president to a lifetime of two terms, or eight years. Since then, no one has presided over the United States for more than eight years. Franklin D. Roosevelt will remain an exception forever.
This limitation was also introduced in the Russian Constitution, and prevented Vladimir Putin from being elected a third time in a row. It did not, however, prevent him from returning after another president's term, unlike the American provision that limits the term to eight years, which is for life.
Vladimir Putin knew how to use this loophole and, after only one term of his faithful stand-in, our would-be dictator was re-elected to the presidency for a third time.
He could have held the presidency again for two more four-year terms and then retire; but dictators of his kind do not retire. And so he used the referendum as an instrument to extend his tenure.
The referendum is considered the best of the democratic instruments to express the “will of the people.” But this is wrong, if we do not take into account the nuances and the precise rules it requires.
The referendum can and is often manipulated to serve, not the will of the people, but individual interests, including, in this case, those of Vladimir Putin.
What are the rules that must be followed in order to obtain a valid result and express the will of the people?
First of all, a referendum question must be clear and not open to interpretation. Ideally, it should be validated by a competent body that is totally independent of the cause being debated and of any partisan groups that advocate one option or another.
Second, it should not be buried in a set of different issues to avoid infinite variations in the interpretation of the result.
Third, all groups, including a completely free press, and all citizens, must be able to debate their opinions publicly and freely over a pre-referendum period long enough to allow for enough reflection.
Fourth, voting should proceed smoothly and without pressure, and no voter should be denied access to the ballot box.
Fifth, counting of the results must be done in front of representatives of all groups concerned and made public by an independent body.
And I would add, as a precautionary measure, that a referendum should not allow anyone to extend his or her presidential term beyond a certain length of time in order to avoid the emergence of a new dictator.
A period of 10 years would be an acceptable length of time. The incumbent has time to make his mark, but not time to enslave his people.
Vladimir Putin has violated almost all these conditions at one time or another. Moreover, in a final referendum in 2019, he had his term of office extended to 2036. In other words, he has become “President for life.” If the above rules had been applied, he could not and would not have been able to stay in power “legally.” If he were to remain in power by force, flouting the constitution and the judiciary responsible for its application, he would lose the aura of “democracy” that these people cherish. This would make him more vulnerable.
The above example identifies a loophole that must be closed. But there are many other routes to dictatorship. An in-depth analysis would identify them and suggest the necessary changes to get there.
The world now has many examples, mostly since the end of the Second World War. Even though it is a short period, it is rich in examples of situations in which the budding freedom in various countries was crushed because of the lack of basic conditions to overcome this fragile initial period.
The slightest crack in a bathtub can drain it completely. The same is true of our freedoms: an incomplete system will not allow us to protect them effectively.
The task, I know, may seem impossible. Beyond making recommendations, it is a matter of convincing and proceeding, in many countries, to major modifications to sometimes heavy and controversial constitutional texts. However, this is the crucial effort that must be agreed to in order to spread the benefits of freedom throughout the entire world.
Comments