Systems Mapping
In June 2023, Toda Peace Institute’s international working group of researchers first met to explore common factors contributing to a global decline in democracy. The group devoted a session to exploring how the erosion of democratic institutions occurs from a systems perspective. In other words, what are the interactive dynamics and behaviors of key actors that lead to the decline of democracy, often resulting in reinforcing downward spirals? The working group reflected on a draft systems map and embarked on an ongoing process to refine the initial map. The resulting and continually evolving map can be used to complement more traditional analyses and cross-country comparisons. While systems mapping can help us understand how democratic erosion functions as an analytical process, it is best used to explore effective actions to counteract negative dynamics or to reinforce positive ones. The systems maps can also suggest strategic points of entry for pro-democratic practitioners.
We are currently developing a generic map with interactive features as well as country-specific maps in the hopes that these will be useful tools for researchers, students, and practitioners.
Why Systems Mapping? Systems maps are useful for showing how a range of factors relate to each other. The systems tool used here is called “causal loop diagraming.” The process depicts a series of cause-and-effect relationships among relevant factors, forming a set of either “reinforcing loops” (similar to a vicious circle) or “balancing loops,” which involve a dynamic that returns the situation to a desired state or counteracts a reinforcing loop. The systems map presented here and as developed so far includes only reinforcing loops, that is, the self-reinforcing traps of anti-democratic forces.
A systems map is a tool that can be used to explore what kinds of actions might be taken to counteract negative dynamics explored or analyzed—or to reinforce positive elements. While systems mapping is a useful analytic process, it is only as useful as the strategic thinking it promotes. Strategic actions could involve any number of interventions designed to interrupt the vicious cycles—or the development or reinforcement of countervailing dynamics that might return the situation to a more stable—and in our case—democratic state (i.e., a balancing loop).
A Generic Map. The graphic presented in Figure 1 attempts to explain current trends in the erosion of democracy as a systemic problem. In other words, what we refer to as “democratic backsliding” or the “erosion of democratic systems” is not explained as the actions of single powerful individuals or even anti-democratic groups. Rather such individuals or groups gain power and undermine democratic institutions because the systemic dynamics permit them to—and the power gained allows further consolidation of power and decline of democracy. The challenge is how to promote more robust and resilient democratic institutions and norms that can survive anti-democratic movements—and thrive.
We must emphasize that the “map” in Figure 1 is generic. In other words, while it is derived from experience and research—it does not occur exactly as depicted anywhere! Therefore, to apply accurately to any specific context, the map would have to be adapted, refined, and perhaps even significantly altered, drawing on the insights of those most intimately involved: local people. Nevertheless, while individual countries and regions exhibit unique dynamics, there is an overall pattern that appears to recur in multiple locations around the world.
A Narrative Explanation
The systems map is complex and contains a lot of information in a compressed manner. Thus, a narrative explanation is necessary to bring the graphics alive. The explanation below follows the labels on the series of reinforcing loops, shown as R1, R2, and so forth, to orient the reader to the locations on the map.
R1: The Rise of Identity-based Grievances and Increasing Polarisation
There is a lot of literature and speculation in recent years about the increase in polarization. Many attribute this rise to groups that feel a grievance due to a loss of status, and resentment that they are not making progress in relation to others. Some suggest that “existential fear” from a series of global crises also feeds this sense of grievance. In addition, in some countries, otherwise marginalized groups have made some (though modest) gains, which reinforces the sense of insecurity, loss of relative status and feeling (usually unsupported in fact) that others have gained privileges while their group is left out. The resulting sense of grievance results in growing disaffection, alienation and polarization, which moves people to support more extremist parties (and away from centrist groups). It also leads to nationalist /exclusionary stances (“who is a real citizen of _______”?) and identity-based discourse/epithets. The use of such rhetoric tends to reinforce the sense of grievance, providing easy targets for resentment and anger. Note that the factors of disaffection/polarization, nationalist/exclusionary reaction and the sense of grievance are all enmeshed in mutually reinforcing loops; causality operates in both directions.
R2: Poor Government Performance
The dynamic described in R1 also exacerbates ideological divisions within legislative and administrative entities, leading to statis and inaction. This, in turn results in poor government performance (not meeting the needs of a significant portion of the population), which contributes to disaffection and alienation. [Note: Once autocratic forces capture control of government, they eventually have to deliver, or they will suffer from the same dynamic—although with greater capacity to control/suppress efforts at change.]
R3: Vicious Cycle of Government Capture, Suppression and Regressive Policies
Poor government performance (R2), coupled with disaffection/polarization leads to the decline of more traditional and centrist political parties. When combined with populist appeals that also draw on disaffection, anti-democratic forces make gains in the electoral process—not necessarily suddenly, but often increasing their share of the vote until they manage to gain control of the legislature or executive or both. Over time, these forces expand their control over the bureaucracy, budgets, and the military and security apparatus. This permits appointment of favorable judges, blocking effective challenges that might come from an independent judicial branch, weakening institutions that are designed to balance power, and providing legal cover for both repressive and regressive policies.
Control over the bureaucracy and other government bodies allows indulgence in the pervasive practice of [R4] Patronage (nepotism, cronyism, favoritism…), which reinforces their control by making it quite attractive to align with such a powerful group, and also contributing to poor government performance as incompetent people are hired.
Control of the bureaucracy, budgets, etc. leads to (at least) two further outcomes: enactment of regressive policies (further explored under R5), and passage of repressive policies and actions. Within the R3 loop, the implementation of repressive policies serves to consolidate power in several significant ways that operate in parallel: closing civic space; directly suppressing opposition forces; undermining the integrity of electoral oversight functions; and manipulating media narratives. These four actions effectively eliminate or severely limit democratic participation, allowing further consolidation of power. In a nice reinforcing loop of its own [R3a], media narratives feed disaffection, alienation and polarization, enhancing populist appeals which, in turn, reinforce distorted media narratives.
R5: Regressive Policies Result in Negative Consequences
Regressive policies pursue conservative pathways that have potential for affecting many realms of civic and social life. We are showing effects in only two major areas: climate change and conflict. [What other important areas should be included?] Autocratic regimes often take actions against internal groups deemed threatening along some dimension of difference, based on religion, ethnicity/race, class, ideology, or even geography (etc). Or they withhold protection of marginalized groups, such as indigenous inhabitants of the Brazilian rainforest. Some regimes become explicitly aligned with their military. These approaches and associated aggressive actions exacerbate tensions, either internally or externally, and typically result in violent conflicts, which precipitate suffering and increased migration (among many other things). The affects of migration are felt not only in the countries of origin, but multiple countries in the migration routes and in the “receiving” countries, where the influx of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers reinforces nationalist and exclusionist reactions (looping back to R1).
Similarly, regimes committed to an (ultra)conservative agenda tend to reject climate science and slow or stop climate actions. As climate change produces increases in extreme weather events, including severe drought or flooding, competition increases for scarce resources, economies experience stress and populations begin to move to areas with brighter prospects.
R6: Loss of Trust in Democratic Institutions
Another dynamic arises from the factor of disaffection, alienation and polarization: loss of trust in democratic institutions. This, in turn, erodes commitments to democratic values of equity, fairness, fundamental rights and freedoms—and reinforces repressive policies. Those who suffer directly or indirectly from repressive policies (journalists, human rights campaigners, minority representatives, etc.) must make a calculation about the prospects for a successful future—or even survival—if they remain. Many choose to leave—adding to the massive movement of populations and draining away those who might help mount resistance to the autocratic regime.
Missing: Time Delays and Mental Models. The map as presented is missing two important elements usually included in systems maps: time delays and mental models. It is important to note that the dynamics depicted do not happen quickly in most cases, especially in countries that have a long tradition of democracy. If we map the dynamics in any specific setting, it will be important to indicate time delays where appropriate (usually shown as a double hatch mark on the arrow: //). In addition, many of the dynamics of democratic backsliding are driven by emotions, attitudes and mental states…some of which are already included in the map: alienation, disaffection, polarization, grievance, insecurity, threat. But, again, other mental models would need to be added, based on the dynamics found in a particular place.
Looking for Levers for Change. Finally, this systems map is sobering. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that these dynamics are not inevitable or permanent. For centuries, people acting collectively have shown persistence upon a steady (though bumpy!) path towards resilient democracy. The systems map should help us understand how the erosion of democracy works—so we can grasp the levers of change in positive directions.