The redundancy and the obscurity

Today is the International Day of Democracy. The United Nations put it on the calendar in 2007, on a resolution Qatar had pushed for, and picked 15 September because that’s the date, back in 1997, when the Inter-Parliamentary Union sat in Cairo and signed something called the Universal Declaration on Democracy.

Democracy
Photo: The New York Times

The first observance was in 2008, marked by 46 national parliaments, mostly with the kind of events that day tends to produce: open-house days, radio programmes, a special session of the Greek Parliament in Athens. Every year since, someone in Geneva picks a theme.

In 2021, it was “strengthening democratic resilience in the face of future crises”, which was really just the pandemic wearing a policy phrase. This year, it’s “bring human rights into focus”, a phrase built to say something true without committing to anything specific.

I don’t say any of that to be dismissive. I say it because the day itself is a strange object. It exists to remind governments of a thing they are, on paper, already supposed to know.

You don’t get an international day for oxygen.

What the day is actually marking, if you strip the UN language off it, is a gap. The gap between the definition of democracy and the practice of it. On paper: free expression, fair elections, rule of law, minority protection, a public that gets to argue with the people who govern it and occasionally win. In practice, in most of the countries that hold this day on their calendars, at least one of those things is missing, or present in name only, or present for some citizens and not others.

Bangladesh knows this gap from the inside. In July 2024, a protest over civil service job quotas started with students and grew into something the state could not absorb through its normal channels.

What followed wasn’t an argument resolved by institutions doing their job. It was a government leaving office the way governments leave when the ordinary means of holding them accountable have already stopped working.

I’m less interested here in assigning blame for how that month unfolded than in what it revealed: that by the time hundreds of thousands of people are in the street, the quieter tools of democracy have usually already failed, sometimes for years beforehand, and the street is just the first place that failure becomes visible.

That’s the part the UN day tends to skip past. Democracy is not, mostly, a thing that happens in the voting booth once every few years. It’s supposed to be the daily, boring machinery that lets people push back on power without having to occupy a street to be heard. A functioning parliament is a place where an unpopular decision gets debated before it becomes law, not after it’s already been imposed. An independent judiciary is a place where a citizen can challenge the state and have a real chance of winning.

A free press is what makes it possible to find out something is wrong before it’s too late to fix quietly. When those channels work, protest is one option among several, not the only one left. When they don’t, people don’t stop wanting a say. They just run out of smaller ways to get one, and the street becomes the last functioning institution.

That’s what I mean by calling protest democracy’s backup system. It exists, in theory, for the rare moment when every ordinary channel has genuinely failed at once. What July 2024 showed, and what it keeps showing whenever a government falls through the street rather than through a vote of no confidence or a court ruling or a resignation forced by public pressure applied through normal means, is a country running on its backup system far more often than any functioning democracy should need to.

I don’t think this makes the UN’s day pointless. A country doesn’t have to be a full democracy to benefit from being asked, once a year, in public, whether it’s behaving like one. But the asking is cheap next to the harder question underneath it, which isn’t whether citizens eventually get to vote or eventually get to protest.

It’s whether they have anywhere to take a grievance in between those two moments, some ordinary, unglamorous way to make power listen before the streets are the only option left. Bangladesh’s constitution already promises most of what the definition requires. What it has needed, more than once, is for that promise to hold before people have no way left to test it except by filling a road.