• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Moisés Naím"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "United States",
    "South America",
    "Egypt",
    "Russia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Democracy",
    "Global Governance"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Two Paradoxes

The world seems to be growing more paradoxical where democratic practices are becoming more popular among dictators. Democracy gives them something repression can’t - a modicum of legitimacy.

Link Copied
By Moisés Naím
Published on Jun 5, 2018

Source: El País

Times of great change breed contradictions, uncertainties, and perplexities.

Indeed, the world seems to grow ever more paradoxical. Among the many paradoxes that baffle us two in particular have caught my attention. 

First, why do dictators seem to have fallen in love with democracy? In its latest annual report, the NGO Freedom House concluded: “Democracy faced its most serious crisis in decades in 2017 as its basic tenets – including guarantees of free and fair elections, the rights of minorities, freedom of the press, and the rule of law – came under attack around the world. Seventy-one countries suffered net declines in political rights and civil liberties, with only 35 registering gains. This marked the 12th consecutive year of decline in global freedom. Over the period since the 12-year global slide began in 2006, 113 countries have seen a net decline, and only 62 have experienced a net improvement.” All opinion polls reveal that people’s doubts about the democratic process are increasing, especially among the young, and that this is a global trend.

The paradox is that, among dictators, some democratic practices – namely, presidential elections – are very popular. It doesn’t seem to bother them that everyone knows that these elections are a sham. In mid-March there were presidential elections in Russia and Egypt and, in May, in Venezuela. Vladimir Putin won with 75% of the votes, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi with 97% and Nicolás Maduro with 68%. Certainly a good performance, but nothing compared to Saddam Hussein, who in 2002 garnered 100% of the vote in Iraq. Why do they bother put on this show? Why don’t they simply declare themselves president for life and openly exercise their dictatorial power instead of putting on this ridiculous democratic charade? The answer is that democracy gives them something repression can’t: a modicum of legitimacy that – despite the fact that they aren’t fooling anyone – simplifies their lives before certain audiences. The elections, though rigged, allow them to present a democratic facade to their people and to certain key audiences around the world, something that they hope will distract the world a little from the fact that those who oppose them are tortured in prison and murdered in the streets.

Second, why have hackers and whistle-blowers been more successful in the fight against money laundering than governments?

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, many governments decided that “follow the money” was one of the best strategies for identifying and neutralizing terrorist networks. Thus, many nations adopted more restrictive laws and regulations in order to make it more difficult for the wealthy to hide their identity or move money around the world.

The result was that although governments had some success in making the financial system more transparent, their efforts were hampered by the difficulties that nations typically face when they are trying to coordinate efforts as well as the obstacles that were quickly created by the lawyers, accountants, and financial and computer experts who were hired by wealthy clients to help them to keep their money hidden from tax authorities, law enforcement agencies or simply litigious former spouses, business partners or disgruntled employees.

At least until the whistle-blowers and hackers turned up.

John Doe is the pseudonym of someone who made 11 million files from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca public. Each file had detailed information of assets in different banks, the identities of their owners and all the movements of the money in the the accounts between 1970 and 2015. The disclosure of this information, known as the Panama Papers, had repercussions throughout the world. It included data on the accounts of 12 heads or former heads of state, some of them with inexplicable fortunes; more than 60 relatives and partners of well-known politicians, including Vladimir Putin; eight members of the elite that governs China and several companies linked to Donald Trump. But perhaps the main contribution of the Panama Papers was that they revealed how the international financial system – a system that hides behind front men and companies with unidentified owners – actually works, as well as the sophisticated legal and financial instruments used to launder money or simply hide and move it around surreptitiously.

The Panama Papers were not the only leak of bank secrets. There were others before and more will surely come. These leaks – which are always the outcome of unauthorized access to private information – create important ethical dilemmas. But they also open the world’s eyes. It is paradoxical that it has been the hackers and whistle-blowers, acting illegally, who have pulled back the curtain on the international financial system.

The money launderers, the tax evaders, and the corrupt who hide their money in these institutions can no longer sleep easy at night. Not so much because of the threat from governments, but from other citizens who have taken on the task of obtaining and revealing the world’s banking secrets.

Nor can the dictators of our day sleep in peace, even if they disguise themselves as democrats.

This article was originally published in El País.

About the Author

Moisés Naím

Distinguished Fellow

Moisés Naím is a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a best-selling author, and an internationally syndicated columnist.

    Recent Work

  • Research
    The World Reacts to Biden’s First 100 Days
      • +10

      Rosa Balfour, Frances Z. Brown, Yasmine Farouk, …

  • Commentary
    View From Latin America

      Moisés Naím

Moisés Naím
Distinguished Fellow
Moisés Naím
DemocracyGlobal GovernanceUnited StatesSouth AmericaEgyptRussia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Pashinyan surrounded by supporters while speaking to reporters
    Commentary
    Next Steps Toward Peace After the Armenian Elections

    It’s time to build momentum, and Ankara is the venue of the next opportune diplomatic window to do this.

      • Garo Paylan

      Alper Coşkun, Garo Paylan

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Will Russia–Armenia Relations Improve Following Pashinyan’s Re-Election?

    For all the menacing rhetoric, the Armenian prime minister remains a leader with whom Putin is prepared to interact: not as an ally, but as a partner, albeit a problematic one.

      • Alexander Atasuntsev

      Alexander Atasuntsev

  • Participants of a Fridays for Future demonstration walk through Frankfurt with protest signs and banners.
    Paper
    Global Governance in the Twenty-First Century: Sustain, Reform, Transform

    Alternatives to the major powers must play a larger role, no matter if the aim is preservation of the existing global order, reform of its institutions, or transformation into a new model of governance.

      Miles Kahler

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    Washington and Tehran’s Very Dangerous Moment

    The Islamic Republic’s words and actions suggest that it has changed its approach to both diplomacy and war.

      • Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar

      Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Looking Past the Wall on Palestine-Israel

    Policy discussion is ignoring that the Palestinian national project is hollowed out and apartheid is a present danger.

      Nathan J. Brown

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.