DQ

BRIEF REPORT

Democracy—Institutionalized Conflict Resolution: Social Psychological Explanation of Its Decline

Martina Klicperova-Baker Czech Academy of Sciences

Ivo K. Feierabend San Diego State University

The article provides a theory of democracy, democratic peace and of their erosion. Conflicts in democracy are a nondestructive natural occurrence. In fact, democracies are institutionalized conflict resolution systems; democratic peace (pax democratica) works both domestically and internationally. Ideals of the French Revolution, the secular trinity liberté, égalité, fraternité, point to the core of democracy and democratic peace: (a) Liberty reduces frustrations and thus aggression, (b) equality makes people closer vertically, and (c) fraternity or brotherhood means horizontal closeness— common identity. Analogously, causes of the recent erosion of democracy and democratic peace can be viewed in curtailed liberty, equality, and fraternity, that is, (a) in rising frustrations and authoritarianism and eroding liberties; (b) in vertical distancing caused by corruption, electoral fraud, weakened middle class, and a rising underclass; and (c) in horizontal distancing—a weakened common identity as a result of incivility, ethnic nationalism, politicized religiousness, and so forth. Awareness of these factors may help to promote a democratic and thus peaceful world.

Public Significance Statement The article provides a theory of democracy, democratic peace and their erosion, based on the secular trinity of the French Revolution: liberty, equality, and fraternity. Liberty erodes with rising frustra- tions and authoritarianism; equality is weakened by inequality, corruption, and electoral fraud; fraternity by the loss of shared identity. Understanding these factors may help to gain a better insight into the substance of democracy, its fostering, and a possible reversal of the democratic decline.

Keywords: democracy, conflict resolution, democratic peace, democratic paradox, civility

Democratic regimes function as institutionalized conflict reso- lution systems. Conflicts in democracy are perceived not as a fault of the regime but as a natural occurrence. After all, democracies are based on principles which themselves are in mutual conflict— one could call this the fundamental paradox of democracy. Thus, freedom is in conflict with equality, individual rights tend to clash with rights of other people, and so forth. Yet, democracies have

multiple bodies (e.g., government, legislature, and courts) and multiple levels (from local to international) on which conflicts can be managed and solved. It is important to note that due to the basic benevolent character of the liberal societies, conflicts in democra- cies are not approached as destructive zero-sum games, where what one party gains, the other party has to lose; on the contrary, a healthy compromise is perceived as an asset.

Editor’s Note. Continue the conversation by submitting your comments and questions about this article/book review to PeacePsychology.org/ peaceconflict. (The Editor of PeacePsychology.org reserves the right to exclude material that fails to contribute to constructive discussion.)

This article was published Online First January 9, 2020. X MARTINA KLICPEROVA-BAKER received her PhD in psychology. She is

a research scholar at the Institute of Psychology of the Czech Academy Sciences in Prague, she is also affiliated with San Diego State University. Her research interests include psychology of democracy, democratic tran- sitions, post-communism, and political mentalities.

IVO K. FEIERABEND received his PhD in political science. He is professor emeritus in the Department of Political Science, San Diego State University. He is a co-recipient of the Socio-psychological Prize of the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). The main areas of his interest include political violence, peaceful conflict resolution, and democracy.

THIS STUDY WAS SUPPORTED by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic Grant 15-11062S and by Czech Academy of Sciences Grant RVO 68081740, Strategie AV21.

CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to Martina Klicperova-Baker, Institute of Psychology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Hybernska 1000/8, Praha 1, the Czech Republic. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology © 2020 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 26, No. 2, 227–229 ISSN: 1078-1919 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000438

227

The key aspect of democracies, the Kantian democratic peace, pax democratica, has been proven to work both (a) internally, domestically— democracies kill fewer of their own citizens than other regimes do (documented, e.g., by Rummel, 1997)—and (b) internationally— empirical law, according to which real democra- cies do not attack each other (e.g., Russett, 1993). Although these optimistic findings are generally known, people are still waiting for the desired democratic “end of history.”

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité—the Core of Democratic Peace

The motto of the French Revolution (1789)—Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité— did not just announce humanistic ideals; these three concepts also revealed the core of democracy and pax democratica (Feierabend & Klicperova-Baker, 2015). In brief:

Liberty, the essential characteristic of liberal democracies, im- plies reduction of frustrations, which are so intense in dictator- ships—to wit, frustration is the most obvious cause of aggression (Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939). Democracy simply limits frustrations and thus also aggression.

Equality makes people close to each other vertically, by their social status. No one should be too low to be deprived of basic freedoms and rights and no one so high as to not be subject to the law. Every citizen has the right to vote and to run for office; the voters and the elected may swap their roles every election cycle. The sovereignty of the people, the rule of law, and the control of corruption and progressive taxation limit violence and irresponsi- ble use of freedom (license).

Fraternity— brotherhood—means horizontal closeness and common identity, humanism. That is what precludes aggressive- ness and violence in favor of constructive conflict resolution, decency, and magnanimousness; aggression toward a loved object would be frustrating. Shared identity contributes to civic nation- alism, civic culture, benevolent religiousness, and civility in gen- eral. Civility (respect, benevolence, honesty) may well be the most important aspect of democracy because it buffers the conflicts that are natural and inevitable in democracy.

Causes of the Recent Decline of Democracy and of Peaceful Conflict Resolution

The mighty third democratization wave of 1989 was erased by the current democratic recession (cf. Freedom House, 2019, and the Economist Intelligence Unit report for 2019: “The Retreat of Global Democracy,” 2019). The decline is so palpable that some started to label the current period as postdemocratic. Figure 1 suggests what roles the ideals of liberty (reduced frustrations), equality (vertical closeness), and fraternity (horizontal closeness) play in this process.

Liberties erode due to increasing frustrations, the rise of populism and authoritarianism. Freedom House (2019) reported that for the 13th consecutive year, the state of freedom in the world deteriorated. Although modernity and globalization opened new perspectives, they also created unprecedented pop- ulation stressors: the world financial crisis with devastating moral effects, global economic pressures, migration waves, climate change, . . . These caused objective suffering and fear. Frustration of others may be due to relative deprivation: Their lives are tougher than lives of their parents were or they compare themselves with social groups that seem to be receiv- ing undeserved breaks (e.g., lower middle-class White men may feel resentment to people of color, immigrants, women), the global market and open borders instigate concrete fears. Frus- tration and insecurity lead to cynicism and aggressiveness, even if mostly verbal or symbolic, such as voting for ostentatiously intolerant populistic parties and aggressive politicians. In fear, people seek leaders who promise to save the nation and offer the simplest solutions to do so— compare to the “springboard model of dictatorship” (Moghaddam, 2019, pp. 11–12). Elected authoritarians then displace popular aggression toward conve- nient targets and, in the process, limit civil freedoms and human rights, thus further increasing causes of frustration in a vicious circle.

Inequality—the vertical distance of citizens increases and the powerful abuse their dominance. Inequality, the status gap between people, is assessed by various international indices.

Figure 1. Erosion of democracy as a result of curtailed liberty, equality, and fraternity and underlying social psychological factors.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

228 KLICPEROVA-BAKER AND FEIERABEND

The Gini index (wealth distribution indicator) has shown a rising inequality within major powers, such as the United States and China (“Gini Index,” 2009). In most of the Western World, the middle class disappears and the rich and poor grow apart both physically and in their lifestyles; even the education sys- tem (up till now a social equalizer) tends to split the elites and nonelites further apart. However, at the same time, in the developing countries, globalization may form a new middle class by lifting the poor (Birdsall, 2017).

Another important equality measure is the Corruption Index. The current report by Transparency International (2019) stresses the inverse link between corruption and democracy. The lowest corruption is in full democracies (Denmark, New Zealand), whereas the most alarming corruption rating comes from Somalia, Syria, and South Sudan. The Corruption Index also shows a disturbing trend: During the last decade, most countries (113 out of 180) sank on corruption measures. Among them, the United States dropped out of the list of 20 least corrupted countries: “The low score comes at a time when the US is experiencing threats to its system of checks and balances as well as an erosion of ethical norms at the highest levels of power” (Transparency International, 2019, Countries to Watch section, para. 1). Corruption (a breach of equality under law) and enormous wealth inequality affect democratic erosion.

Fraternity declines when the horizontal distance between citizens increases. Human brotherhood comes under attack by divisive propaganda. Antagonistic ideological splits divide na- tions, neighborhood, and families (e.g., red states vs. blue states in the United States; Brexiters vs. “Remoaners” in Great Brit- ain; Wessies vs. Ossies in Germany). Scores of refugees raised by military conflicts, climate change, and economic interests are further utilized by populist demagogues to entice hate crimes (cf. Report to the Nation: 2019: Factbook on Hate & Extremism in the U.S. & Internationally, by the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism; Levin et al., 2019). Political vocabulary becomes rude, and othering in some cases borders on pseudospeciation—politicians suggest that the “others” have subhuman features. Well-meant policies of multiculturalism backfired, failing to deliver the brotherhood of men.1 Divided patriots tend to regress to intolerant nationalism and chauvin- ism. Religion becomes intolerant and political culture uncul- tured. Once people lose the tie of horizontal closeness, they tend to become less civil, giving up the important buffer that otherwise softens antagonistic conflicts to benign conflict res- olution.

Conclusion

Democracy, and with it democratic peace, depend on the secular trinity proclaimed by the French Revolution: freedom, equality, and fraternity. Their waning adversely affects democ- racy and its peacefulness. On the other hand, once the roots of democracy and peaceful conflict resolution have been identi- fied, people may more consciously direct the policies toward (a) satisfaction of human needs, reduction of frustration, and pro- motion of liberties; (b) promotion of vertical closeness by strengthening the rule of law, fairness of elections and taxation;

and finally, (c) promotion of human brotherhood by cultivating civility, omniculturalism (Moghaddam, 2019), civic culture (Almond & Verba, 1989; Klicperova-Baker, Feierabend, & Hofstetter, 1997), civic nationalism, secularism, and tolerant religiousness in order to cultivate prodemocratic and construc- tive mentalities (Klicperova-Baker & Kostal, 2015). Promotion of democracy is promotion of institutionalized conflict resolu- tion within and across nations. A more democratic world is a more peaceful world.

1 Note the appeal for omniculturalism rather than multiculturalism in Moghaddam (2019).

References

Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1989). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Birdsall, N. (2017). Middle class: Winners or losers in a globalized world? Retrieved from https://www.cgdev.org/publication/middle-class- winners-or-losers-globalized-world

Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10022- 000

Feierabend, I. K., & Klicperova-Baker, M. (2015). Freedom and psycho- logical proximity as preconditions of nonviolence: The social psychol- ogy of democratic peace. South African Journal of Psychology/Suid- Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Sielkunde, 45, 564 –577. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/0081246315588907

Freedom House. (2019). Democracy in retreat: Freedom in the world 2019. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/ freedom-world-2019/democracy-in-retreat

Gini Index—Income Disparity Since World War II [Map]. (2009). Re- trieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#/media/File: Gini_since_WWII.svg

Klicperova-Baker, M., Feierabend, I. K., & Hofstetter, C. R. (1997). Nonviolent conflict resolution and civic culture: The case of Czecho- slovakia. In D. P. Fry & K. Björkqvist (Eds.), Cultural variation in conflict resolution (pp. 173–182). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Klicperova-Baker, M., & Kostal, J. (2015). European sociopolitical men- talities: Identifying pro- and antidemocratic tendencies. European Soci- eties, 17, 301–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2015.1018720

Levin, B., Grisham, K., Reitzel, J. D., Nolan, J., Thompson, A., Nakashima, L., & Lambdin, W. (2019). Report to the nation: 2019: Factbook on hate & extremism in the U.S. & internationally. Retrieved from https://csbs .csusb.edu/sites/csusb_csbs/files/CSHE%202019%20Report%20to%20 the%20Nation%20FINAL%207.29.19%2011%20PM.pdf

Moghaddam, F. (2019). Threat to democracy: The appeal of authoritari- anism in an age of uncertainty. Washington, DC: APA Press. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/0000142-000

Rummel, R. J. (1997). Power kills: Democracy as a method of nonviolence. Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Russett, B. (1993). Grasping the democratic peace. Princeton, NJ: Prince- ton University Press.

The Retreat of Global Democracy Stopped in 2018: Or Has It Just Paused? [Chart]. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/graphic- detail/2019/01/08/the-retreat-of-global-democracy-stopped-in-2018

Transparency International. (2019). How corruption weakens democracy. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/cpi_2018_ global_analysis

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

229INSTITUTIONALIZED CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN DECLINE