Challenges to Danish development engagements in a time of increasing autocratisation

For the first time since 1995, the world has more closed autocracies than liberal democracies, with the last two years alone moving nine new countries into the category of closed autocracies, and the level of democracy enjoyed by the average global citizen in 2022 brought back to 1986 levels. Autocratisation has been a slow-moving trend globally, involving a gradual erosion of democratic norms and values such as deteriorating freedoms of expression, rule of law, election quality, as well as increased media censorship, and repression of civil society organisation. However, most of the drastic changes have taken place within the last five to ten years.  

Over the past years, the African continent has experienced what UNSG Guterres has called an ‘epidemic of coup d’états’, entailing a vast majority of people in Sub- Saharan Africa (79 percent) now reside in autocracies. Military takeovers in countries like Niger, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Mali, and Sudan have constituted a belt of coups spanning across the continent from west to east. The wave of authoritarian resurgence has hit the African continent both incrementally (gradual undermining of democratic institutions and civic freedoms) and in the form of political ruptures (military coups). 

In Mali, as an example of autocratic rupture, after decades of somewhat improvements in democratic institutions in its transition from authoritarian rule, a military coup in 2012 and unrest in the northern has greatly increased the country’s fragility. After the second coup, which saw the instalment of interim President Goïta, reports of arrest and torture of critics of the government by the authorities were filed alongside critique of the prolonging of the military rule and the delay in transition to democracy. 

Incremental autocratisation, on the other hand, implies an erosion of democratic institutions by a strategy of a thousand small steps. Censorship of media and repression of CSOs, limits to academic and cultural freedom, and freedom of discussion, are all gradually made, potentially helped along the way by states of emergency such as those imposed during Covid.  

In Uganda – where Museveni’s National Resistance Movement (NRM) still exercise authority over the country after three decades – regular elections are held, but their credibility is deteriorating. Allegations of election fraud, internet shutdowns, and political repression leading up to the 2021 election align with previous reports of election-related issues in Uganda. The projection of authoritarian power over population and territory through unpredictability and uncertainty essentially makes it difficult for citizens to know what to expect and thus how to react in interactions with state institutions. 

Operational dilemmas in the provision of effective assistance 

Denmark faces a variety of strategic and operational challenges staying engaged in increasingly autocratic settings including maintaining domestic support for such engagement, sustaining paths of collaboration with national authorities, identifying effective delivery methods as well as reviewing and adapting programs according to the local political circumstances. 

The international strategy to address autocratic regimes is increasingly characterised by the implementation of economic sanctions, limitations on or complete discontinuation of development assistance and political relations. However, the suspension of aid or sanctioning of these countries can worsen existing challenging circumstances and widen established gaps of inequality. 

The ability to provide effective assistance and support pro-democratic forces on the ground relies heavily on access to localised knowledge as to navigate which institutions, communities, and groups to include in the efforts. Limited information on the local context and specific needs on the ground (political sensitivity generally increases barriers for information sharing) coupled with little coordination amongst various donating actors constitutes a central obstacle to identifying the best possible framework for engagement. 

Access to local areas and communities in need, essential to delivering aid, can be challenging to gain and maintain in autocratic settings or armed conflict. Situations may require a move from governance and value-driven development cooperation to support of basic human needs through e.g. cash transfers, something that aids a population’s foundation, a necessary condition for them to instigate political change. 

Strategical and political approaches to engaging in autocratic contexts 

Trust and accountability are essential to operating effectively and with impact under these conditions, but relations of trust develop over time and may quickly be disrupted. Pragmatic idealism, as forwarded by the Danish government, presupposes some core values, but at the same time emphasizes an increased need to ensure that Danish visions also have fertile ground in other people's perspectives – including in diverging views as to what constitutes autocratisation and democracy. 

Processes of autocratisation are more often than not situated within lengthy, complex, multifaceted crises. Engagement, therefore, requires not only enhanced flexibility and willingness to adapt, but greater political engagement and a more proactive role from donor governments. Change, when operating in autocratic contexts, is inevitable, yet challenging and changeable conditions do not justify an ad hoc approach. On the contrary, they require these issues be approached strategically and politically - not least in relation to how Denmark structures its engagement. Systems able to handle surprises, ruptures, and disruptions through strong analysis, flexibility, and adaptation, are necessary. 

Denmark may come under pressure from its elected officials and the opinion of their populations to discontinue engagement in autocratic settings, because of fears of complicity. Support from taxpayers and politicians plays a large role in the decision-making process on whether to stay engaged and under what conditions. Thorough analysis should be complemented by learnings from the past, including from different contexts – Denmark have longstanding experience in manoeuvring autocratisation that can be drawn upon. 

Danish experiences stress a diversity of ways to think about and respond to autocratisation, but they also stress similarities in challenges and the value of collecting lessons and experiences for the sake of learning. Learnings that shape how we collect intelligence and information, analyse local circumstances and developments, or respond to intensified processes of autocratisation, ruptures such as coups, or opposite trajectories of improvement that may be every bit as difficult to respond to in a timely and appropriate manner.  

Three key measures are relevant, in light of recent Danish experiences over the past decade: engagement, nuance, and trust.  

Engagement because absolute decoupling never seems to be an appropriate response, no matter the circumstances, at all times requiring capacity and resources locally. Long term presence cannot be taken as a given or overestimated for the ways it provides access and dialogue, including to areas where one may not work or provide support, simply because of the temporality of engagement. The vast majority of man-made crises turn into protracted ones with immense human consequences, demanding an enduring engagement that should not be fully disrupted through automatic responses to regime changes and the like.  

Nuance because few of these situations are completely alike and require similar instruments, but also because their inherent complexities mean we cannot resort to rushed decisions that are black and white in their interpretations of whether, or where, or with what, we can remain present.  

And finally trust because efforts in these contexts require faith in embassies and local staff, whose contextual knowledge and insights are defining for how to be engaged. The difficult circumstances mean we are rarely able to rely on established modes of control, oversight, or bureaucratic ordering that we would usually depend on. In such situations, embassies and local staff must be the foundation for decisions made, if these are to produce any changes locally.