On 30 January 2024, the Oxford Union assembled to debate the motion ‘This House believes that liberal democracy has failed the Global South’. The ‘Global South’ (GS) is generally used as a term for a group of developing countries from the G77, but some claim the term is unhelpful and reductive, as many of the speakers identified.
Arguing for the motion were Arwa Hanin Elrayess, a student at St. Edmund Hall; Brendan O’Hara, an MP from the Scottish National Party (SNP); Professor Ahsan Iqbal, a minister for planning development and reform in Pakistan; and Professor Stefan Dercon, a scholar of economic policy at the University. Opposing the motion were Asad Iqbal, a student at Worcester College; Ambassador Georges Friden, Luxembourg’s ambassador to the UK and a former ambassador to the EU; Ambassador Kurt Volker, a former US diplomat; and Professor Surya Subedi, a professor of international law known for acting as legal counsel at the International Court of Justice.
The proposition opened with Arwa Hanin Elrayess arguing that ideologies themselves do not succeed or fail; rather, they are mobilized by people and lack agency. She critiqued the weaponisation of liberal democracy by the West as a tool of oppression and domination, emphasising its rigidly Western nature. According to Elrayess, economic assistance such as structural readjustment programs have been used by the West to exert control over other nations. She pointed to the absence of Western commitment to human rights in the ongoing Palestinian crisis, asserting that liberal democracy, in this context, serves as a mask for oppression and domination rather than a genuine force for freedom and justice.
The opposition opened with an eloquent speech from Asad Iqbal, explaining that to propose liberal democracy has “failed” assumes that there was anything “liberal” about those democracies in the first place. He brought attention to the possibility that liberal democracy had been “deliberately stifled” by elites, both domestically and abroad, via intervention from nations in the West. Iqbal argued that this calculated move by foreign superpowers is the true cause of economic stagnation. Iqbal also highlighted that the use of the term ‘Global South’ is “incredibly reductive”. He noted that this region is home to two thirds of the world’s population, though there is no universal agreement regarding which countries are actually members of this cluster, so this proportion may in fact be higher.
Brendan O’Hara argued that the failure of liberal democracy in the Global South stems from the West’s complacency, arrogance, and colonialism. He criticized the imposition of a foreign governance system by former colonial powers, leaving these regions impoverished with minimal aid. O’Hara highlighted the West’s exploitation of resources and its expectation of loyalty from the Global South without meaningful investment. He condemned the disregard for international law and the perception of nations constituting the Global South as inferior. Ultimately, he called for a commitment to global equality and a rejection of colonial attitudes to protect and defend liberal democracy.
Ambassador Friden continued the opposition’s argument. Rather than accepting the minimal definition of liberal democracy as being a matter of elections, parliaments, and capital, Friden argued that this was a phenomenon including “protection of human rights” with “free and fair” elections. These pillars of liberal democracy, he argued, cannot be shown to have failed, by virtue of the fact that Friden would “struggle” to identify one nation in the Global South that embraced liberal democracy “in substance”. The implication of this appears to be that, whilst Friden could identify countries in which some elements of liberal democracy are employed, there is not one in which all elements are present. If there has been no substantial case of liberal democracy, Friden denies that it could have failed.
Professor Ahsan Iqbal critiqued liberal democracy for being imposed on the Global South with promises of freedom, prosperity, and justice, but delivering debt traps, political instability, and social crises instead. He argued that liberal democracy is not designed to empower Global South countries but to keep them under the control of the Global North. He highlighted how liberal democracy, presented as a “panacea,” often benefits the “contractors of the Global North”, leading to political double standards, economic exploitation, and environmental injustice. Despite promises of freedom and human rights, the reality has been broken promises, genocide, and war. Iqbal emphasized that liberal democracy has fueled environmental destruction without protecting the GS, pointing out that Pakistan, contributing less than 1% of carbon emissions, has still suffered from these failures.
Professor Iqbal was followed by Ambassador Volker who claimed to have heard “no argument against democracy” thus far in the debate, stating that arguments centred around “colonialism” and “empires” do not concern democracy. Volker maintained the sentiment outlined by Asad Iqbal regarding the unreliability of the term ‘Global South’, arguing further that there is “no such thing as the Global South”. Further to this scrutiny of the use of this term, Volker argued that the claim that liberal democracy has failed these nations is founded in the “soft bigotry of low expectations” from those in the West, who would claim that the Global South is “not ready” for liberal democracy. Consequently, this claim against liberal democracy seems to be another example of foreign superpowers being overly paternalistic.
Professor Stefan Dercon argued that the notion of “failure” in the context of liberal democracy export should be understood as the failure to fulfill its promises, particularly regarding economic growth and poverty reduction. Liberal democracy, as the UK government’s main export product, has been promoted since the end of the empire, with the promise of delivering these outcomes. However, he pointed to historical data from 1800, claiming that it shows no clear relationship between democracy and economic growth. He further noted that even more recent data indicates a two-thirds reduction in global poverty since 1990, but without a strong connection to democracy. According to Dercon, democracy as exported often represents “form more than substance,” exemplified by cases like Malawi, where democracy existed, yet extreme poverty doubled.
Finally, Professor Subedi concluded for the opposition, proposing that the success of liberal democracy in the Global South will be a story of patience. Subedi contended that it is simply a “matter of time” until liberal democracy and human rights prevail in the Global South, under the “framework of good governance” provided by democracy. Following a similar line to Volker, Subedi argued that Western countries do not have a “monopoly” over the concept of liberal democracy. During his assistance drafting the new Nepalese constitution, Subedi explained that he was inspired by concepts from South Africa and India. Perhaps there is potential for successful liberal democracy in similar nations, provided the version of liberal democracy is not an imported version from the West that is incongruent with practice and culture in the particular country.
After a compelling, informative, and somewhat technical debate, the Ayes emerged victorious, supporting the argument that liberal democracy has indeed failed the Global South. The motion passed with 184 votes for the motion, and 145 votes against it.