By James Stockmal

In thinking about the future of democracy, it might be useful to discuss its origins and what others have to say on the subject. When asked where did democracy begin, most historians would point to the city state of Athens, especially since the word democracy stems from ancient Greek, demos (people) and kratos (rule). We will get to this in a bit, but some archeologists have suggested that other civilizations did have rules of law long before the Athenians.

Tell Brak in the 7th century BCE is considered to be the world’s first city ruled by a kinship-based local assembly and the first organized religion[1]. Located in what is now Syria, Tell Brak was a crossroads of commerce across Mesopotamia. Others have recently claimed that Jericho may have been the first “city,” settled somewhere around 9000 BCE.[2] Both places developed agriculture, had some sort of rules of order, and stopped nomadic living. Hammurabi, the 6th King of Babylon created 272 laws for governing commerce and life in 1754 BCE. His Rules of Law and Civic Governance may have been the first constitution, that is, an aggregate of fundamental principles that constitute the legal basis of polity. Archeologists have suggested that two necessary pre-conditions needed to evolve – the invention of writing and coinage and the move to cities. Previous codes of commerce were thought to have existed prior to Hammurabi, namely those of UR and Eshnunna, but none as extensive as his.

Draco’s rules of order in 621 BCE in Athens were rather harsh and cruel, hence draconian. Solon posited citizen membership should be based on wealth or a plutocracy vice birth or aristocracy in 594 BCE. In Cleisthenes time, 508 BCE, citizens voted by hands at a weekly assembly. Pericles, 403 BCE extended citizenship to all males 18 and over, who were non-slaves and owned property. Aristotle advanced the notion of constitutional law in 350 BCE.

The Romans extended the notion of democratic principles to that of a Republica from the Latin Res meaning thing or affair. The Republica was the thing that belonged to the Roman people, or Populus Romanus. The legislature was elected and consisted of the Senate and four assemblies called the Comitia with 30 Curiae, plus local tribes. It became more and more difficult to legislate with the expansion of the Holy Roman Empire (HRE). It was difficult to be a representative government across three continents. So, the HRE had to rely on city-state alliances. Much has been written about why the empire fell, but it seems the struggles of corruption, infighting, over expansion, not paying attention to budgets (e.g., keeping Hadrian’s Wall operational was a huge overhead for the Roman leaders,) and not treating hired help well seem to be compelling reasons for any organization, let alone an empire to learn from, even a future democracy[3].

It wasn’t until the 18th century where representative governments first began to appear in Northern Europe. It was compelling to come together to collectively address societal issues in practical ways. For the United States (US) in our early history there was much debate on what kind of democracy we should be. Madison argued for a “direct democracy” vs. a “representative democracy” that we have today. Representative democracies solved the dilemma between enhancing the ability of political association to deal with large-scale problems while presenting the opportunity for citizen participation. Alexi de Tocqueville from his travels across our nascent country, viewed our democracy as a political system -- a rule by the people, but also a system of rights. Hammurabi’s code was also a system of rights and the rules were progressive, not regressive.

The current international, rules-based liberal order was created after World War II, beginning with the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. A big part of the rationale was to avoid what happened after World War 1. Officially known as the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference was attended by forty-four countries and focused on agreeing on a new set of rules for the international monetary system focused on stability – of markets, trade, and security. The Atlantic Charter of 1941 between Roosevelt and Churchill helped create the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the conference simply build upon this treaty and the desire for stability.

At the conference, the US favored a system of exchange pegged to the US dollar. The British preferred exchange pegged to the pound. In the end, the US dollar would be set to the value of gold at $35 per ounce and all other central banks would peg their currencies to the US dollar. This agreement was seen to lessen volatility and prevent competitive devaluation of currency. Also, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Banking Group (WBG) were established coming out of the conference. The IMF monitors exchange rates and identifies nations needing additional monetary support. The WGB manages funds that are made available for assistance and development.

The “Bretton Woods” system wasn’t fully operational until 1958 and it “collapsed” in the 1970s, but it has had lasting influence on international currency exchange and trade. Monetary and fiscal policy changes in the US in the 1960s created several problems and challenges to the system. Expanding the Vietnam War and creating the Great Society caused a big rise in inflation. The US gold supply was inadequate to cover the number of US dollars in circulation. Nixon devalued the dollar in 1971, which created a run on the gold reserve, and suspended the dollar’s convertibility to gold. In 1973, central banks were no longer required to peg their currencies to the dollar. The banks had a few options instead: peg to another currency, peg to a basket of currencies, or let their exchange rates freely float in the market. This is the system we have today, although some countries still took actions the Bretton Woods system wanted to avoid – competitive devaluation of their currency, like China did in August of 2015.

The Bretton Woods system had three flaws: adjustment, confidence and liquidity[4]. The adjustment problem reflected downward rigidity in wages and prices which limited normal price adjustment of the gold standard price. Also, the US serving as the central reserve country didn’t have to adjust its balance of payments deficits, while the rest of the world had to do, thus creating resentment. The confidence problem was directly related to the US balance of payments deficit which created fear of a run, and in turn also created a liquidity concern throughout the 1960s.

Other issues have strained this international order in recent times:

• Rise of nationalism in many countries like Poland, Hungary and here in the US
• Rise of populism in 2000s in democracies including Austria, Brazil, India, and Indonesia[5]
• China’s threat to intellectual property (IP) and currency manipulation (3% drop in 2015)
• Russia’s aggressive actions in Crimea and elsewhere
• Rogue state and non-state actors.

So, what can be done? Jain and Kroenig have suggested possible ways forward[6]:

• Revitalize by creating a renewed focus to rally democracies, not just those in the transatlantic alliance, but across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, to work together to shore up common values, but also to engage with the autocracies like China and Russia to garner their support for the international system.
• Adapt and redesign the international system to address existing short comings, and perhaps create new institutions to address the new realities facing democracies, especially in the developing world.
• Defend the system and create more opportunities for compliance, oversight and governance to hold states accountable for their actions including addressing autocratic interference (think Belt and Road,) terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and disruptive technologies.

Jain and Kroenig also suggest that whichever strategy are taken; the revised international rule of law should include the following principles of governance:

• Access to justice and judicial review
• Legal certainty
• Proportionality
• Equality and non-discrimination
• Transparency

Furthermore, each of these approaches require engagement, as well as, the belief that countries still want to be part of a rules-based liberal order. Stephen Walt asserted that “We deceived ourselves that the rest of the world would adopt freedom and the rule of law.[7]” He states further, “…liberal world order is a myth…more people live under authoritarian regimes.” In fact-checking this, the Economist Intelligence Unit says that 49.3% across 165 countries have some form of democratic rule[8]. More distressing is that 89 of these countries fell in their democracy score and only 27 improved; the rest were flat. In 2017, the US was ranked only 21st. Norway, Iceland and Sweden are the top three followed by New Zealand.

But democracies and a rules-based order do offer the promise of better living:

• There is a causal link with democracy and the increase in education levels (Crespo-Cuaresina and Albasi-Shausci, 2010)
• Democracies have greater wealth, better health, lower infant mortality rates, greater spending on education and better teacher to student ratios; for example, global gross domestic product (GDP) has risen from $4,079 in 1945 to $11,500 today
• Less death from wars, in fact since 2000 less than one-hundredth of 1 percent have died in armed conflict

What is the ideal future democracy? Can we really reboot the UN, the WTO, and other international institutions? Can we build a coalition of the D10 and G7 to re-affirm a rules-based order? Can they work together on other global issues like climate change, terrorism, human rights, inequality or poverty? What are the key elements of the new order? Perhaps:

• Effective participation – that is the opportunity to express ones’ own views to others
• Equality in voting – one voice, one vote
• An informed electorate – the opportunity to learn about policies and possible alternative policies and their consequences (similar to or building on the Evidenced-Based Policy Act under the Obama administration)
• Inclusion of all citizens
• An “open” process
• Fundamental rights (ala the US Bill of Rights)
• Free and fair elections
• Freedom to assemble
• Freedom of expression
• Independent sources of information (free press)

There are many questions that need further vetting. Should universal basic income be included in a reframed, liberal rules-based order as many have suggested to address poverty across the globe? How do we handle technology which has disrupted the order and will likely continue to offer further disruptions at the national, local and personal level?

From a strategic perspective, engagement of the D10 should include several scenarios and build the democratic capabilities needed for each scenario, much like Jain and Kroenig have suggested. This should include a purposefully examination of how best to improve on the institutions we have developed over the past 75 years. It should also include clear communication on the benefits of living in a democratic society and a dialogue with autocracies to bring them along into the new order. The path forward should also include not only national representatives but tap into the ideas that governors, mayors, business leaders have already implemented to address issues like climate change and inequality.

We may not be able to have a Galactic Senate like in Star Wars and as in the saga, there will always be rogue actors and plants to undermine the system, but can’t we do better? There is no try, do or do not. The future of democracy is our responsibility.

About the author: Mr. Stockmal writes monthly articles on organizational development, leadership, strategy, organizational transformation, and cyber security for The Strategic Edge, a publication of the Association for Strategic Planning (ASP.) Jim teaches the Strategic Management Performance System (SMPS) in conjunction with LBL Strategies and George Washington University’s Center for Excellence in Public Leadership (CEPL.) Jim also teaches the Mastering Agile Organizational Design program for CEPL. Jim also provides leadership support for the Manage to Lead program by Intelliven. Over the years, Jim has trained nearly 5000 adult learners in the areas of strategy, process improvement, change management, and organizational development.

He can be reached on Twitter: @stockmalj. Select publications and presentations include:

• “Conducting Virtual Strategic Planning Sessions.” April 2019, The Strategic Edge.
• “Reflections on “S-Curves” and Leading Strategic Change” Linked In, November 1, 2016: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reflections-s-curves-leading-strategic-change-james-stockmal/
• “Overcoming False Foundations for Strategic Planning and Change”. The Strategic Edge, September 2014.
• “Managing Transitions”. The Strategic Edge, August 2014.

[1] Monica L. Smith, “Cities: The First 6,000 Years,” (New York, Viking, 2019) p4.

[2] Chelsea Follett, “Centers of Progress, Pt. 1: Jericho (Agriculture,) HumanProgress, April 24, 2020.

[3] James D. Stockmal, “The Fall of Rome: Disruption or Mismanagement,” The Strategic Edge, September 1, 2018.

[4] Michael Bordo, “The Operation and Denise of the Bretton Woods System: 1958 to 1971,” VoxEU April 23, 2017.

[5] Yasmeen Serhan, “Populism is Morphing in Insidious Ways,” The Atlantic, January 6, 2020.

[6] Ash Jain and Matthew Kroenig, “Present at the Re-Creation: A Global Strategy for Revitalizing, Adapting, and Defending a Rules-Based International System,” The Atlantic Council, 2019.

[7] Opening comments by Stephen Walt, at the Democracy Statecraft Lab Discussion moderated by Mary Louise Kelly of NPR and hosted by University of Virginia’s Democracy Initiative, October 8, 2020.

[8] Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2019, The Economist Group, 2021.