Reasons why people choose to return to authoritarian/dictatorship after successful democratic transition

Even if the democratic transition is relatively successful, people may not be able to support democracy. Instead, they may lose patience with achieving their demands through democratic politics for various reasons and embrace authoritarianism again.

For example, Egypt after the "Arab Spring" had already overthrew the Mubarak dictatorship, achieved democratization, and elected the president and members of the parliament with an Islamic-democratic position through universal suffrage. The election was also fair and transparent, and there was no fraud. However, the political forces that lost in the election were dissatisfied with the results of the election, and continued to carry out street protests and even violent actions, as well as playing political maneuvers. The country was in turmoil. In the end, the Egyptian military intervened and staged a coup d’état, overthrowing the elected government with the endorsement of some public opinion. President Morsi and members of Congress in the ruling bloc were arrested, and a large number of related people were killed and sentenced. Egypt returned to a state of military dictatorship. (Although it is slightly more democratic and free than the Mubarak period). Later, the democratically-elected President Morsi died in prison due to multiple diseases, while the former dictator Mubarak was free to enjoy his old age, and the achievements of the Egyptian revolution were almost in vain. Although the military was the decisive force in the coup, it would have been impossible for the military to regain power without the people's attacks on the democratic regime and the various political sabotage actions by the opposition that went beyond the scope of democracy and the rule of law.

On the other hand, Tunisia, another country with a relatively more successful democratic transition during the "Arab Spring", has achieved great progress in civil rights and people's livelihood even if it once achieved democracy and peace. But a few years later, the people elected a strong authoritarian leader (Kess Said), who in the recent referendum on constitutional amendments gave the president more power, weakened the parliament, and made the regime democratic The component weakens and the authoritarian component strengthens.

Brazil, which has been democratized and ruled by the military government for nearly three decades, has also elected to defend the brutality of the military government, blatantly advocate dictatorship, suppress women's rights and indigenous rights, reduce or even abolish various social welfare guarantees and other ugly things. The president of words and deeds (Bolsonaro).

Marcos Jr., the son of former dictator Marcos, was elected president with 58.77% of the vote in the Philippines general election in May this year. Before and after his election, he denied that his father was a dictator, refused to apologize for his father's crimes, and praised his father's "political achievements". Even so, he still beat a number of other candidates for the presidency by a large margin. According to his position and performance, although he will not become a dictator like his father, he is at least an authoritarian president who is hostile to freedom and human rights.

Why is this happening? The reasons are very complicated, but to put it simply, the people’s political literacy is not high, they are impatient with reaching their demands through democratic procedures, they cannot understand and respect the personal interests of other groups, they refuse to “share interests” and prefer “winner takes all”, various Insatiable greed for appeals, no cherishing of democratic politics. With the exception of the Philippines, the democratization of the above four countries can be said to have been quite successful in developing countries. Not only is political democracy and the rule of law progressed, but the economy is not worse than the previous authoritarian period. But the people do not cherish and abuse their democratic rights and freedoms. Under the violence and control of authoritarian authority, the people are often kept silent. Even if they are subjected to various oppression and humiliation, the government will be grateful for some favors. However, after democratization has been achieved, people have obtained rights and freedoms, material supply has also been improved, and the distribution has become more equitable (at least fairer than in the era of authoritarianism), people have used the obtained democracy and freedom to try to obtain more benefits (including reasonable, non- Reasonable; achievable, unrealistic), insatiable, greedy, and often very self-interested while opposing the demands of other groups and individuals. Especially in the case of conflicts of interest, there will be double standards and self-serving, such as elites pursuing freedom but opposing labor rights (such as China), men defending democracy but opposing women’s rights (such as Brazil), urban middle class wanting democracy but opposing the majority of votes many farmers (eg Thailand).

If the government cannot satisfy the desires and demands of these people, and if they feel that the government is "biased" towards various groups, they will try to "turn the table", ranging from harassing and attacking those in power through democratic and legal procedures, and at worst, through violence. Disrupting order by various means. And a democratic regime cannot and is not inconvenient to repress and control public opinion like an autocratic regime (if it is limited suppression and control, it will arouse people's rebellious psychology, and use the government's "soft hand" and social gaps to resist. Control, only an autocratic government can do), so the people recklessly destroy the order, the politics becomes more turbulent, the transformation and construction stagnate, and then the people become more dissatisfied, and this vicious circle.

After all kinds of tossing and turning, the people have lost confidence in the democratic government, and the rulers of the democratic government are also disappointed with the people, the country's governance is poor, and the social order is chaotic. As a result, various strongmen and violent institutions intervene, and the old forces of the autocratic era often make a comeback, and the country becomes autocratic or authoritarian again. At this time, the majority of the people have "tossed enough", and those who want to "toss" will be suppressed by the strongmen and the military (they are not as tolerant as civilian-led democratic regimes), but they are no longer as full of democracy and freedom. The courage to oppose and resist like that, and the order is stable. After the people gained freedom and democracy, they destroyed democracy through freedom, and killed freedom with democracy. It is very ironic and paradoxical in reason, but it has happened many times in reality.

Of course, some actions of the people should be "understood with sympathy". In the era of dictatorship, the people were violently oppressed and exploited all the year round, they were unable to speak freely, and they lacked civic qualities and training to participate in democratic politics. After democratization, the suffering people have a strong "compensatory mentality" and want to make up for the losses during the autocratic period as much as possible. For example, under dictatorship, people who have no money to go to school and medical treatment, and cannot afford to buy a house in a big city to support the elderly, it is obviously impossible for the democratized government to let the people "educate the young, live in and live in, and live in the old." People who are in pain will oppose the government, undermine the democratic and legal order to vent their dissatisfaction (can we expect the patients who are struggling in the hospital bed, the people without The family members who are struggling with money to pay bills calmly understand the government, vote rationally and not be deceived by populist figures who randomly promise welfare? Even if the government is not able to relieve his pain and provide free medical care, and populists and careerists are even less likely).

Even if the democratic regime provides certain welfare guarantees, they will still not be satisfied, because people's desires are endless. Under democracy, the control of public opinion has been relaxed or even disappeared. People who did not have critical thinking training during the autocratic period spoke recklessly without knowing the boundaries of freedom of speech and restraint, and all kinds of extreme and violent speeches would appear, and they never dared to criticize and become irrelevant. Both right and wrong are criticized and abused. In the past, it was difficult to express any dissatisfaction under the autocracy, but now with rights and freedoms, they finally "turned over" and "raised their eyebrows". To some extent, these are not the problems of the people, but are caused by the violence and coercion, ignorance and abuse of the people by the previous autocrats (although it is also related to the human nature of bullying the weak and fearing the hard, taking an inch, insatiable greed, and irrational nature).

Moreover, the dissatisfaction and resistance of the people of all countries to the democratic regime after democratization are almost all instigated and instigated by vested interests and various old forces in the autocratic era, and the people are being used. But objectively, these actions of the people undermine the hard-won democracy and ultimately harm themselves. After China's democratization, it is entirely possible for such things to happen (in fact, it has happened before, and in some periods of the Republic of China (1927-1937, 1945-1949), civil rights and people's livelihood were acceptable (compared to the Manchu Qing, Beiyang, Japanese occupation, and the CCP) , but the majority of the people are still fiercely opposed to the government, with various violent and non-violent resistances one after another, and they also actively or passively choose to support the Communist Party).