emocracy is under assault all over the world. Right-wing populists have risen to power in many democratic countries, exploiting weaknesses in institutions to enhance their own authority. Going hand in hand with surging authoritarianism is an equally disturbing trend of rising nativism, whereby authoritarian leaders champion the interests of dominant ethnic groups while casting minorities as second-class. As citizens of democratic states, we must resist these illiberal forces and instead double down on our support for multi-ethnic democracy. We must do so not merely as a moral imperative, but because it will make us better off in the long run.
Populist leaders have taken advantage of public uncertainty in these insecure times, gaining support by promising simple and decisive solutions. Though authoritarian leaders are rather capable at making quick decisions, that does not mean that they are capable at making good decisions. More specifically, right-wing demagogues tend to make short-sighted choices as opposed to ones that will increase the long-term standing of their states in the international system. Authoritarianism may seem appealing in times of crisis, but in the long run, the multi-ethnic democratic model is the best form of statecraft.
Enhanced Decision-Making
Multi-ethnic democracies are typically better at making good decisions.
The opening of James Surowiecki’s book Wisdom of Crowds illustrates the advantages of collective decision-making, using the example of a 1906 county fair in the United Kingdom where 787 fair attendees guessed the weight of an enormous ox. British scientist Francis Galton borrowed the tickets to analyze the results. Taking the average of all the guesses, Galton found that the crowd estimated the weight of the ox to be 1,197 pounds and the actual weight turned out to be 1,198 pounds. The collective knowledge of the diverse crowd was nearly perfect.
In a 2017 article, scholars Brad LeVeck and Neil Narang use this same logic to explain why democracies are better at making policy decisions compared to authoritarian regimes. Diverse collections of free-thinking individuals make better decisions, and commit fewer decision-making errors - particularly in high-pressure situations of crisis and bargaining. Compare this to authoritarian regimes, where decisions are made by small, homogeneous groups of like-minded individuals. In these settings, groupthink is more likely to emerge where the desire for harmony, or fear of non-conformity, may lead to self-censorship and suboptimal decision-making. In short, the diversity of ideas and the processes of deliberation and debate make multi-ethnic democracies more adept decision-makers.
Greater Economic Stability and Growth
Multi-ethnic democracies, thanks to their diversity, tend to do better economically.
The first recommendation that any financial advisor will give is to diversify an investment portfolio. Why? The goal of diversification is to spread out risk so that any individual investment that performs poorly does not harm the performance of the entire portfolio. In this way, diverse economies are not just able to adapt and survive, but they are also more likely to thrive. Greater diversity means more perspectives and new ideas from disparate sources of inspiration, leading to innovation and growth. Additionally, the processes of deliberation, debate, and refinement ensure that the best ideas rise to the top. In the context of organizations, there is substantial research linking diversity to enhanced economic performance. For example, one Boston Consulting Group study found evidence that diverse management teams have 19% higher revenues due to innovation.
The same logic applies to a country’s economy, where diversity and dynamism are sources of security and prosperity. A country characterized by homogeneity and top-down decision-making is less likely to foster an economic environment conducive to brainstorming, trial-and-error, and innovation. Instead, authoritarian economies tend to be overly reliant on specific sectors, especially natural resource commodities, which are much more vulnerable to shocks or disasters. Alternatively, a country that possesses numerous productive capabilities is more likely to weather crises, and to achieve consistent growth under stable conditions. A brief glance at the Economic Complexity Index, developed by Richard Hausmann and Cesar Hidalgo, appears to support the existence of a relationship between democracy, economic dynamism, and growth. In the long run, countries composed of diverse individuals from varying backgrounds, cultures, and skillsets are better positioned to generate groundbreaking ideas that provide a strategic advantage in a fiercely competitive international economic environment.
Healthier, More Resilient Populations
Ethnic diversity means more resilient, healthy people.
A country’s own citizenry can be a key determinant of state power. With a large and healthy population, a country can field a powerful military to defend its interests. It can also supply a productive workforce who can produce goods and perform services that will generate wealth. However, without a healthy and resilient populace, a country may lack sufficient human capital to support these two pillars of state power. Moreover, a country with a sickly population may have to expend resources caring for the infirm. That is why some countries, such as China, are concerned with the prospect of an impending demographic crisis.
The COVID-19 pandemic reminded us of the important role that global health will play in the twenty-first century. The ability to ward off disease and remain resilient in the face of ongoing outbreaks will continue to be a central objective of state policy. Just as diverse economies are more capable of enduring external shocks, so too are countries with greater genetic diversity in a better position to biologically defend against pandemic disease outbreaks. As global climate change continues to alter ecosystems forcing humans to evolve and adapt, genetic diversity will become an increasingly valuable asset for multi-ethnic democracies.
Despite recent trends toward authoritarianism and nativism, the multi-ethnic democratic governance model endures as the best form of statecraft in the long run. Moral arguments aside, multi-ethnic democracies are better at making decisions, they promote more stable and prosperous economies, and they foster healthier and more genetically diverse populations that are better positioned to remain resilient in the face of twenty-first century biological threats. Though right-wing authoritarians may seem appealing in times of crisis, we must resist the temptation to drift toward a governance model that will leave us worse off in the long run.
a global affairs media network
Doubling Down on Multi-Ethnic Democracy
Photo by Colin Lloyd via Unsplash.
April 27, 2022
Around the world, governments are trending toward more authoritarian and nativist leaders in a natural reaction to growing insecurity. Yet multi-ethnic democracy remains the best form of statecraft available to us in the long run, writes UC Santa Barbara's Matthew Rochat.
D
emocracy is under assault all over the world. Right-wing populists have risen to power in many democratic countries, exploiting weaknesses in institutions to enhance their own authority. Going hand in hand with surging authoritarianism is an equally disturbing trend of rising nativism, whereby authoritarian leaders champion the interests of dominant ethnic groups while casting minorities as second-class. As citizens of democratic states, we must resist these illiberal forces and instead double down on our support for multi-ethnic democracy. We must do so not merely as a moral imperative, but because it will make us better off in the long run.
Populist leaders have taken advantage of public uncertainty in these insecure times, gaining support by promising simple and decisive solutions. Though authoritarian leaders are rather capable at making quick decisions, that does not mean that they are capable at making good decisions. More specifically, right-wing demagogues tend to make short-sighted choices as opposed to ones that will increase the long-term standing of their states in the international system. Authoritarianism may seem appealing in times of crisis, but in the long run, the multi-ethnic democratic model is the best form of statecraft.
Enhanced Decision-Making
Multi-ethnic democracies are typically better at making good decisions.
The opening of James Surowiecki’s book Wisdom of Crowds illustrates the advantages of collective decision-making, using the example of a 1906 county fair in the United Kingdom where 787 fair attendees guessed the weight of an enormous ox. British scientist Francis Galton borrowed the tickets to analyze the results. Taking the average of all the guesses, Galton found that the crowd estimated the weight of the ox to be 1,197 pounds and the actual weight turned out to be 1,198 pounds. The collective knowledge of the diverse crowd was nearly perfect.
In a 2017 article, scholars Brad LeVeck and Neil Narang use this same logic to explain why democracies are better at making policy decisions compared to authoritarian regimes. Diverse collections of free-thinking individuals make better decisions, and commit fewer decision-making errors - particularly in high-pressure situations of crisis and bargaining. Compare this to authoritarian regimes, where decisions are made by small, homogeneous groups of like-minded individuals. In these settings, groupthink is more likely to emerge where the desire for harmony, or fear of non-conformity, may lead to self-censorship and suboptimal decision-making. In short, the diversity of ideas and the processes of deliberation and debate make multi-ethnic democracies more adept decision-makers.
Greater Economic Stability and Growth
Multi-ethnic democracies, thanks to their diversity, tend to do better economically.
The first recommendation that any financial advisor will give is to diversify an investment portfolio. Why? The goal of diversification is to spread out risk so that any individual investment that performs poorly does not harm the performance of the entire portfolio. In this way, diverse economies are not just able to adapt and survive, but they are also more likely to thrive. Greater diversity means more perspectives and new ideas from disparate sources of inspiration, leading to innovation and growth. Additionally, the processes of deliberation, debate, and refinement ensure that the best ideas rise to the top. In the context of organizations, there is substantial research linking diversity to enhanced economic performance. For example, one Boston Consulting Group study found evidence that diverse management teams have 19% higher revenues due to innovation.
The same logic applies to a country’s economy, where diversity and dynamism are sources of security and prosperity. A country characterized by homogeneity and top-down decision-making is less likely to foster an economic environment conducive to brainstorming, trial-and-error, and innovation. Instead, authoritarian economies tend to be overly reliant on specific sectors, especially natural resource commodities, which are much more vulnerable to shocks or disasters. Alternatively, a country that possesses numerous productive capabilities is more likely to weather crises, and to achieve consistent growth under stable conditions. A brief glance at the Economic Complexity Index, developed by Richard Hausmann and Cesar Hidalgo, appears to support the existence of a relationship between democracy, economic dynamism, and growth. In the long run, countries composed of diverse individuals from varying backgrounds, cultures, and skillsets are better positioned to generate groundbreaking ideas that provide a strategic advantage in a fiercely competitive international economic environment.
Healthier, More Resilient Populations
Ethnic diversity means more resilient, healthy people.
A country’s own citizenry can be a key determinant of state power. With a large and healthy population, a country can field a powerful military to defend its interests. It can also supply a productive workforce who can produce goods and perform services that will generate wealth. However, without a healthy and resilient populace, a country may lack sufficient human capital to support these two pillars of state power. Moreover, a country with a sickly population may have to expend resources caring for the infirm. That is why some countries, such as China, are concerned with the prospect of an impending demographic crisis.
The COVID-19 pandemic reminded us of the important role that global health will play in the twenty-first century. The ability to ward off disease and remain resilient in the face of ongoing outbreaks will continue to be a central objective of state policy. Just as diverse economies are more capable of enduring external shocks, so too are countries with greater genetic diversity in a better position to biologically defend against pandemic disease outbreaks. As global climate change continues to alter ecosystems forcing humans to evolve and adapt, genetic diversity will become an increasingly valuable asset for multi-ethnic democracies.
Despite recent trends toward authoritarianism and nativism, the multi-ethnic democratic governance model endures as the best form of statecraft in the long run. Moral arguments aside, multi-ethnic democracies are better at making decisions, they promote more stable and prosperous economies, and they foster healthier and more genetically diverse populations that are better positioned to remain resilient in the face of twenty-first century biological threats. Though right-wing authoritarians may seem appealing in times of crisis, we must resist the temptation to drift toward a governance model that will leave us worse off in the long run.
