In recent years, the state of democratic systems around the world has become a topic of growing concern. This article delves into the historical evolution of democracy in various nations, identifying trends, successes, and challenges. While some regions experience promising reforms, many others face significant setbacks, raising critical questions about the future of democratic governance.
Yves here. Though this post offers valuable historical insights into the evolution of democratic systems globally, its optimistic conclusion, positing that the world is merely undergoing a phase of “democratic backsliding,” is perhaps overly naive, as Matt Stoller might say. The current state of affairs suggests a deeper crisis.
We are increasingly approaching what can be described as a polycrisis. Simultaneously, the reach of surveillance technology expands as elites grow more concerned about their legitimacy and ability to maintain control. Across Western nations, we are witnessing a rise in authoritarian practices characterized by the suppression of free speech, the persecution of peaceful opposition movements, escalating election interference (such as in Romania and Moldova), and, in the United States, the alarming prospect of military action against perceived internal adversaries, as hinted by Trump’s recent comments. It appears that while identifying opposition groups has become straightforward for these regimes, managing them is proving to be a much more daunting task. Individuals and organizations are already being utilized as cautionary tales in extraordinary containment efforts.
Thus, I do not hold a positive view of our democratic prospects.
By John P. Ruehl, an Australian-American journalist residing in Washington, D.C., and a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute. He contributes to various foreign affairs publications, and his book, Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas’, was published in December 2022. Produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute
Sri Lanka’s 2024 elections have accelerated reforms initiated after the country’s 2022 economic crisis, which saw mass protests compel limitations placed on presidential authority. Moving forward, in 2025, the new government aims to strengthen its parliamentary framework, reminiscent of the system in place during independence before transitioning to a presidential model in 1978. This potential shift in Sri Lanka is emblematic of South Asia’s ongoing experimentation with various democratic structures. Pakistan began as a parliamentary democracy but has since fluctuated between parliamentary and presidential systems. Bangladesh, too, moved to a presidential system before reverting to parliamentarism in 1991.
The discourse surrounding democracies in South Asia forms part of a broader discussion about the most effective types of governance. With a few exceptions—China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and select other authoritarian nations—the majority of the world’s countries now conduct regular elections, demonstrating at least an official commitment to democracy. A study by the nonprofit educational technology platform OpenStax reveals that about “36 percent of democracies are parliamentary, 25 percent are presidential, and 39 percent are semi-presidential.”
Democracy has emerged as the global norm over recent decades, though its allure and credibility are waning. Many regimes that label themselves as democratic engage in rigged elections or manipulate political processes, while established democracies are witnessing a significant decline in public trust in their institutions and processes. As ideological competition increasingly shifts to occur within democracies themselves, understanding the development, forms, and appeal of different democratic models is crucial for safeguarding their processes.
The roots of contemporary democratic models were established in various ways, centuries after the ancient Greeks in Athens introduced self-governance, permitting a limited segment of society to participate in decision-making through either direct or representative voting. The United States founded the first presidential republic in 1789, with a president elected directly as both head of state and head of government. This role was independent of the legislature, allowing the president to appoint their administration, pending legislative approval. Despite echoing monarchical power, the presidency was restricted by checks from other branches and, later, term limits.
Throughout the 1800s, this model gained traction across the Americas, as newly independent nations adopted the presidential framework to assert sovereignty and solidify executive authority amid tumult and external pressures.
In contrast, parliamentary governance consolidates executive power within the legislature rather than a singular office. In this system, the prime minister is subject to removal through a vote of no confidence, with cabinets often reliant on shifting coalitions to maintain authority.
This system can be traced back to medieval Europe, where monarchs occasionally consulted assemblies but generally limited their authority. Following England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688, monarchs were compelled to govern with the parliament’s consent. Over the ensuing centuries, parliamentary systems proliferated throughout Europe and British colonies such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
After both World Wars, newly established democracies in Europe and Asia often adopted parliamentary institutions, with the U.S. encouraging this approach to prevent the concentration of power in one individual and safeguard against the resurgence of authoritarian rule. “The post-World War II occupations of Germany and Japan were America’s first experiences using military force post-conflict to facilitate rapid and fundamental societal, political, and economic transformations… Their successes demonstrated that democracy could indeed be transferred; under specific circumstances, societies could be motivated to change,” stated E-International Relations.
The decline of European colonial empires led to a surge of democratic systems, with many former British colonies also adopting parliamentary frameworks based on institutions established during colonial rule.
For instance, India’s democratic framework was shaped by the Indian Civil Service and British administrative systems, evolving into the world’s largest parliamentary democracy upon gaining independence in 1947.
In other regions, the process of democratization was often hasty. Many anti-colonial movements rejected British and European parliamentary legacies in favor of presidential systems, which promised unity and decisive leadership, enabling ambitious leaders to consolidate power. Countries in former British Africa, including Ghana, Malawi, Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda initially embraced parliamentary systems but switched to presidential rule after independence. Beyond Africa, nations like Guyana and Sri Lanka also reverted to more centralized presidential systems.
While numerous governments aimed to steer clear of absolute presidentialism, frustrations from frequent political upheaval, weak coalitions, and legislative gridlock within parliamentary systems by the mid-20th century sparked experimentation. In 1958, after a staggering 24 governments in 12 years, Charles De Gaulle overhauled French democracy, leading to the establishment of the Fifth Republic with a directly elected president alongside a prime minister accountable to the parliament. This semi-presidential model was built upon earlier examples from Weimar Germany and Finland and only gained formal recognition in the 1970s.
In this system, the president, elected directly by the populace, is responsible for foreign policy, defense, and diplomatic representation. The prime minister usually appointed by the president oversees domestic policy and operates the cabinet while remaining accountable to the legislature. This arrangement facilitates “cohabitation,” allowing the president and prime minister to come from different political parties. It has been adopted by various countries seeking a balance of strong, directly-elected leadership with parliamentary oversight. Nonetheless, the structure of semi-presidential systems can vary widely regarding the power distribution between the two offices.
Democracy in the Modern Era
The collapse of communism paved the way for further democratic proliferation. Some nations adopted a parliamentary framework in line with broader European trends, including Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Georgia and Armenia also transitioned to parliamentary democracies in the 2010s, while Moldova has gradually streamlined its presidential powers, steering toward a parliamentary system. Other nations such as Romania and Poland adopted semi-presidential systems.
Conversely, Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, and several Central Asian states embraced presidential governance, which has evolved into super-presidential systems marked by authoritative rule. Kyrgyzstan began experimenting with parliamentary governance following two revolutions. The “Tulip Revolution” in 2005 overthrew President Askar Akayev but maintained presidential dominance largely unchanged. A second uprising in 2010 led to constitutional modifications that redistributed power among the president, prime minister, and parliament, establishing a basis for parliamentary governance. However, the country reverted to a powerful presidential model following constitutional amendments in 2021. Meanwhile, Ukraine has sought reform throughout the 2000s and 2010s to decrease presidential authority, but the ongoing Russian invasion in 2022 has regressed it toward a centralized presidential model to preserve wartime unity.
As witnessed during the Cold War, Washington has persistently supported various democratic frameworks. It endorsed color revolutions in post-Soviet and post-Yugoslav countries to promote parliamentary governance while tolerating strongman presidential rule in Africa for stability’s sake.
The approach to nation-building amid the war on terror further reflected similar pragmatism: Iraq was established as a parliamentary republic to foster political consensus across its sectarian divisions, while Afghanistan was given a strong presidential framework to unify a fragmented society. Afghanistan’s political system collapsed after the U.S. military’s comprehensive withdrawal in 2021, whereas Iraq’s framework, despite recurring crises, has managed to hold together thus far.
These outcomes seem to vindicate arguments made by Juan J. Linz in his seminal piece, “The Perils of Presidentialism,” published in 1990 during anongoing debate over democratic frameworks that new democracies should favor parliamentary systems to enhance their chance of survival. Presidentialism’s “winner-take-all” dynamic renders democracy a zero-sum game. “Linz posited that such a system hampers compromise and coalition-building while intensifying competition and polarization,” according to a blog by Justice Everywhere. Nonetheless, such dynamics are not exclusive to presidential frameworks; parliamentary democracies like India and the UK can also erode democratic norms through majoritarian practices.
Currently, the rebirth of the strongman archetype is being observed in parliamentary frameworks, often facilitated by the absence of term limits. Israel briefly ventured into directly electing its prime minister in the 1990s before reverting to parliamentary voting methods in 2001. However, under Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership, constitutional changes and political practices have increasingly centralized power within the prime minister’s office.
In Hungary, Viktor Orbán has transformed parliamentary institutions to solidify his party’s hold on power. Moreover, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has centralized authority, evolving from previous attempts established under Indira Gandhi and some of her supporters during the Emergency (1975-1977) into a system more aligned with presidential governance.
Concerns over power consolidation remain more pronounced in presidential systems. While the threat of coups and military intervention to depose an unpopular president looms large, some assert that its benefits may outweigh the hazards, particularly when legislative powers are curtailed. Strong presidents can maintain consistent leadership during crises, but strict term limits complicate the removal process. Conversely, prime ministers can be more easily ousted.
Parliamentary democracy offers its own strengths and vulnerabilities. Belgium, a longstanding parliamentary democracy and center of the EU, managed to function without a federal government for 652 days between 2018 and 2020. Yet the system endured until a consensus was found, avoiding dominance by a single individual.
While semi-presidentialism is often viewed as a compromise, it presents its unique challenges. France’s experience since adopting this model has illustrated how cohabitation can lead to legislative gridlock. The current rotation of prime ministers reflects the fragility that can develop, even absent formal cohabitation. Newer semi-presidential democracies like Tunisia have demonstrated how vague demarcation between presidential and parliamentary powers can breed instability that threatens the political framework.
Sri Lanka’s ongoing political transformation underscores the appeal of parliamentary governance, although strong presidentialism retains its allure. In 2017, Turkey officially relinquished nearly a century of parliamentary democracy in favor of a presidential structure. Tunisia’s 2021 coup occurred just ten years after its revolution, considered the birthplace of the Arab Spring and its only “success story.” Since then, President Kais Saied has reshaped Tunisia from a semi-presidential system into a robust presidential republic, sidelining both parliament and the prime minister’s office. Egypt has similarly augmented presidential power, reversing previous reforms.
Despite his critiques of presidential frameworks, Juan Linz made an exception for the United States, attributing its stability to a broad moderate consensus and a relative absence of deep polarization. Given that these conditions are now under strain, discussions advocating for the U.S. to transition to a parliamentary model are gaining traction. Similar discussions are occurring regarding the futures of Sri Lanka, Syria, and Ukraine, contingent on the conclusion of their respective conflicts.
In light of the ongoing wave of democratic erosion and discontent, the broader ideology remains in flux. Unlike previous periods marked by intense and violent conflicts between fascism, communism, and monarchy, modern democracies now engage in extensive collaboration across ideological and institutional lines. However, sharper divides and rivalries among different democratic frameworks could steer their evolution toward greater antagonism.
Though these experiments pose risks of instability, the upcoming decades could yield novel solutions that redefine successful democratic practices. Change is also observable on smaller scales, such as the implementation of council-manager governments at municipal levels within the United States that resemble parliamentary systems. Enhanced local adaptations and increasingly frequent transitions among parliamentary, presidential, and hybrid systems may become a normalized strategy for democracies aiming to endure and effectively manage relations.
