A group of highly influential democracies of the global south—Brazil, India, Indonesia, and South Africa—have reinforced their democratic credentials in recent months through elections that were universally hailed as fair and honest. While their commitment to pluralism sets a strong example for their neighbors, they have often behaved as if their concern for democracy ends at their borders. In all four cases, these giants of the global south have proved unimpressive as ambassadors for democratic governance in their regions and beyond.
Indians went to the polls in April and May for the largest election ever to take place; the momentous results included the first government in thirty years to win enough support to rule without a coalition. In Brazil, a surprisingly close contest in October forced the governing party to rethink key policies. Meanwhile, Indonesians elected a president from outside elite society in July in a contentious race. And in May, South Africa held its fifth successful election since the end of apartheid.
This series of events has demonstrated the vibrancy of democracy outside of the prosperous north. But when challenged to use their considerable influence to expand freedom’s reach abroad, the leadership of these countries has consistently fallen short, sometimes woefully so.
A new study published by Freedom House shows that Brazil, India, Indonesia, and South Africa do not meet the same standards of support for democracy and human rights as fellow democracies in Europe and the United States. This failure is due largely to policies that favor strict noninterference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, policies that preclude action in response to sometimes egregious violations committed by regional neighbors.
Thus, even as Brazil’s international prominence grows, it has refused to take action in response to pervasive human rights abuses in Venezuela and Cuba. President Dilma Rousseff explicitly refrained from commenting on Venezuela’s violent crackdown on protesters last February, saying it was not Brazil’s role to tell Venezuela what to do. Brazil joined its neighbors in unanimously supporting Venezuela’s bid for a seat on the UN Security Council in October—the same month Rousseff was re-elected. Brazil has also taken a notably non-critical stance toward ongoing violations in Cuba, with no clear policy to pressure the Castro government to release political prisoners or tolerate a pluralistic media.
India has made some effort to support embattled democracies in South Asia. However, India abstained from a March 2014 UN resolution to investigate human rights violations in Sri Lanka, and sided with authoritarian regimes in the joint UN statement on the promotion and protection of civil society space. India has also ignored China’s continued rights abuses, such as heavy-handed methods to control protests in the restive region of Xinjiang, and it has declined to criticize Russia’s takeover of Crimea.
Among emerging powers, Indonesia shows a rare rhetorical commitment to supporting democracy abroad. The outgoing administration backed up its statements with a variety of bilateral and multilateral initiatives to share experiences and promote the incorporation of democratic values in its regional policies. However, this approach relies solely on carrots, when sometimes a stick is the only fitting response. Thus, for example, Indonesia remained silent in face of the May military coup in Thailand and has declined to criticize Myanmar for the treatment of its Rohingya population.
Finally, South Africa emerged from apartheid with high expectations for its regional and even international leadership on democracy and human rights issues. But its foreign policy has been increasingly insular, driven by the government’s constricted vision of national interest. Confronted by authoritarian abuses in neighboring Zimbabwe and Swaziland and further afield, like Egypt’s military coup, the ANC government has consistently responded with watered-down and ineffective diplomacy. Intermittent statements of solidarity with other democracies are belied by an unwillingness to condemn, much less take action, against regimes that persecute minority groups, rig elections, and arrest political opponents.
The tepid support that rising powers like Brazil and India give for democracy internationally is a cause for serious concern. Their passivity encourages the most aggressive instincts of authoritarian rulers at a time when repressive regimes are growing more assertive around the world. By taking cover behind the smokescreen of noninterference, the leading democracies of the global south are sending the unfortunate message that an important constituency within world democracy will overlook the kinds of inhumane actions that their own freedom struggles emerged to resist.