Fill out the brief form below for access to the free report.
This post originally appeared on www.freedomcollection.org.
A vanishing breed, one hopes. I refer to absolutist regimes that deny their citizens a voice in government as well as personal freedoms, civil liberties and due process of law. Freedom House calls these regimes the “worst of the worst.” It has recently released its list of these monsters for 2012. They number 16 out of the world’s 195 independent countries. Each year Freedom House’s battery of experts reports on the state of freedom in every country on earth and ranks them on a scale on which the best score is 1 and the worst is 7. Those receiving scores from 1 to 2.5 are labeled “free,” those from 3 to 5 are “partly free,” and those from 5.5 to 7 are “not free.” Among the “not free,” the very least free—scoring either 6.5 or 7 are dubbed “the worst of the worst.” This year, seven countries scored 6.5. They were Belarus, Burma, Chad, China, Cuba, Laos, and Libya. Nine others scored a rock-bottom 7: Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The total of sixteen is not quite the lowest on record since Freedom House began these annual surveys in 1973, but it is close. The lowest was 15 in 2003. Thus the number of such regimes seems to have reached a plateau over the past decade which is in keeping with overall situation of freedom in the world. After remarkable progress in the 1980s and 1990s, the numbers flattened out in the new century, but the gains have not been lost. And clearly, the long-term trend is toward more freedom and the disappearance of these most repressive governments. The collapse of the Soviet empire was the most dramatic but far from the only piece in this broad picture. In 1973, only 29% of the world’s countries were rated “free” as compared to 46 percent “not free.” Today, the ratio is reversed with free countries accounting for 45% while only 24% are not free. The curve charting the most repressive countries is even steeper. In 1973 these constituted 18% of all the countries, and for a time that disheartening number got bigger rather than smaller, peaking in 1984 at 23%. Today’s 16 countries on this list amount to a mere 8%. Moreover, the list this year includes Libya and Burma, as it has for decades. But these two countries are in the throes of dramatic changes too recent to be fully recorded in the current Freedom House reckoning. If they stay on their present paths, both will be off the list by next year. The same might possibly be true even for Syria where a brutal regime totters and its aftermath remains very uncertain. In his second inaugural address, President George W. Bush raised some eyebrows when he spoke of “the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” The word “tyranny” may not exactly match up with Freedom House’s “worst of the worst.” But the one may be taken as a close approximation of the other. If a year from now we are down to 14 or 13 such regimes, how long might it be until we reached zero?
This post was written by Joshua Muravchik, Fellow in Human Freedom at the George W. Bush Institute.
Joshua Muravchik is the author of nine books, including The Next Founders: Voices of Democracy in the Middle East (2009), Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (2001), and Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America’s Destiny (1991). He has published more than 400 articles on politics and international affairs. Muravchik is an adjunct scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and an adjunct professor at the Institute for World Politics. He is also a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies.
Muravchik serves on the editorial boards of World Affairs, Journal of Democracy, and Journal of International Security Affairs. He formerly served as a member of the State Department’s Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion, the Commission on Broadcasting to the People’s Republic of China, and the Maryland Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Previously he was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Chinese Prisoner’s Death Holds a Message for Americans and China
Liu Xiaobo, China’s most prominent dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner died this week. His death holds a message for Americans and for China.
Release of Chinese Political Prisoner a Timely Reminder to Support Freedom Advocates Abroad
More than half the world’s population still lives in countries where basic political rights and civil liberties are only partly respected, if at all.
Bringing Freedom to the Forefront of 21st Century Politics
Is the global liberal democratic order in danger? Purposefully constructed in the aftermath of World War II, this order -- and the American leadership that is central to its success --has contributed to securing peace and expanding prosperity in the United States and around the world. Today, that order appears to be dissolving. This crisis is not new or sudden; it has been mounting for several years. Global challenges like authoritarian capitalism, violent extremism, demographic pressures, and displaced populations have placed global freedom in decline. Fraying traditional alliances united by core values of freedom are increasingly weak to respond. It is alarming that the downdraft in democratic resilience over the past decade or more includes countries that have long been part of the consolidated democratic West. This is democratic deconsolidation. In much of the Western world, we see a rise in demagogic populism, illiberalism, nationalism, protectionism, and waning conf
The Importance of Speaking Truth to Tyrants
What the president of the United States says matters. Even during the realpolitik policies of détente under Richard Nixon, it was still clear that American policy was based on a set of core values. Nixon’s practical goals of reaching deals with America’s adversaries was never based on the “great chemistry” with himself or praising the Soviet or Communist Chinese leadership doing a “fantastic job.” When the president aligns himself with the autocrats and dictators, he aligns America with their oppression. He sends a message that corruption and brutality are not our concern. Contrast that with how Ronald Reagan defied much of world opinion in calling out the brutality of the Soviet system. Natan Sharansky, then a refusenik imprisoned in a Soviet gulag, later wrote for the Weekly Standard of his thoughts on Reagan’s pronouncement that the USSR was an evil empire: “It was the great, brilliant moment whe