Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Lessons for Democracy Reformers in the Legacy of President Jimmy Carter

Opinion

Lessons for Democracy Reformers in the Legacy of President Jimmy Carter

ATLANTA -- SEPT 14: Former President Jimmy Carter interviewed for "The Presidents' Gatekeepers" project at the Carter Center, Atlanta, Georgia, September 14, 2011.

(Photo by David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images)

President Jimmy Carter touched the lives of millions, in countries around the world, through contact points as diverse as public health campaigns, Sunday school lessons, rural homebuilding, or appreciation of southern rock. Included in his huge roster of impact is the organization I lead, Election Reformers Network, which was founded by international democracy experts inspired by his leadership. Like many others, I had the good fortune to work with President Carter on election missions overseas and to support The Carter Center’s expansion of its work into the United States. Carter’s legacy has much to teach democracy reformers here in the U.S.

President Carter learned early in his career about the anti-democratic forces he would challenge so often throughout his life. He lost his first election for Georgia state senate because of election fraud so blatant that “ the dead voted alphabetically.” Georgia had long been a one-party state ruled by insiders and local Democratic Party bosses. Blacks were systematically disenfranchised, and voting rules gave rural counties vastly disproportionate power through an in-state version of the electoral college.


Carter fought in court and in the media against the party operatives and their ballot stuffing, and he was finally awarded his senate seat. Along the way, many counseled him to give up and accept the way things worked, but he persisted. His commitment to the principles of fairness mobilized key advocates to challenge the status quo. But that same moral grounding meant his victory wasn’t laced with vindication. In his book about the election, Carter is remarkably even-handed toward the system that had tried to cheat him.

Carter’s win launched his political career and helped make democracy and election fairness central to his work in the White House and beyond. In 1982, the year he launched The Carter Center, only a third of the countries of the world were electoral democracies ( according to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance), and a peaceful democratic transfer of power seemed impossible across most of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Central and Eastern Europe. Many assumed that democracy couldn’t take root in certain regions or cultures. But before the end of the century, the number of electoral democracies had more than doubled, burying those old doubts about cultural barriers.

President Carter and The Carter Center played an important role in this huge increase in genuine elections and human freedom around the world. Carter’s work overseas often resembled his seminal Georgia senate win. He persisted in the face of daunting obstacles and kept long-term goals in sight. His faith in the betterment of all people made every corner of the globe important to him. In his many election monitoring missions, he emphasized the transparency that deters fraud and ensures fair elections. But Carter also focused on the important underlying structures of democracy, which so often favor insiders and incumbents, including who runs elections and how votes translate into power.

There are many lessons here for US reformers, including the importance of both elections and the wider range of rules and institutions that make democracy function. His successes overseas depended on authentic nonpartisanship that we can learn from, a complete neutrality toward election outcomes. For me personally, more specific lessons include his advocacy for the U.S. to move away from relying on partisan insiders to run elections, a cause Election Reformers Network has long supported. His opposition to electoral-college-style voting in Georgia reconfirms my concern about the many distortions of our presidential voting system and the need, long though it will take, for constitutional reform.

But Carter’s most important lessons are moral. He was able to combine an almost spiritual commitment to full and fair democracy with respect and empathy toward even those who oppose democratic change. Often, the key to his success was a willingness to personally connect with and trust actors whom most would assume to be his adversaries. “He built trust with autocratic leaders under threat from opposition movements in countries such as Nicaragua and Zambia,” remembers Democracy International CEO Eric Bjornlund, who worked with President Carter in several countries over more than a decade. “That quality helped him succeed in ushering in peaceful transitions in those pivotal countries.”

These considerations bring up questions about approaches to the very different man who, in a few short weeks, will occupy the White House. Carter voiced opposition to Trump policies, but personally attended his first inauguration in 2017. In a 2022 New York Times opinion piece, Carter spoke out against the “lies” and “disinformation” “that stoke distrust in our electoral system.” He would surely be concerned now by Trump’s continued refusal to accept the verdict of the rule of law regarding the 2020 elections. Despite these very real concerns, Carter would be at Trump’s next inauguration on January 20 if he could.

Democracy is grounded in the rule of law and in respect for all people. How fortunate we are to have President Carter’s example of deep moral commitment to both goals.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization.


Read More

A close up of a person reading a book in a bookstore.

As literacy declines in America, what happens to democracy? This essay explores how falling reading levels, digital media, and the loss of “deep literacy” threaten self-government and the foundations of equality.

Getty Images, LAW Ho Ming

Promoting Civic Literacy for America’s 250th

We Americans have always felt anxious about our democracy. As Benjamin Franklin famously said, ours is only “a republic, if you can keep it,” and we’ve been plagued by a nagging feeling ever since that we can’t. The latest bout of handwringing is brought on by declining literacy and the threat it poses to liberal democracy, and—aware of our penchant for anxiety though we may be—it is hard not to feel concerned.

The fact is that we have large and growing numbers of kids who can’t read well. National Assessment of Education Progress scores reveal that the number of students scoring below NAEP basic has grown steadily since 2019. While the percentage of students considered proficient has held steady, decreased literacy is reported even in elite colleges and universities. Adult reading is way down as well.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bar graph of shopping carts

A deeper look at inflation in today’s economy—beyond money printing. Explore how trade fragmentation, geopolitics, tariffs, and industrial policy are driving structural inflation and rising costs in the U.S.

Andriy Onufriyenko/Getty Images

Inflation Has Changed—And So Has Who Pays for It

A familiar conservative argument is back: inflation is the result of government printing and overspending. Too many dollars, too much demand, not enough goods. It is a tidy explanation, one that has the advantage of clarity and a long intellectual pedigree. It is also incomplete.

That story assumes a stable, globalized economy in which production is efficient, supply chains are reliable, and market signals dominate political ones. In that world, inflation can plausibly be reduced to a question of monetary discipline or fiscal restraint. But today’s economy no longer operates under those conditions. Inflation is now driven less by excess demand and more by rising costs tied to trade fragmentation, industrial policy, and geopolitical conflict. These forces are not temporary disruptions. They are reshaping how goods are produced, where they are produced, and at what cost.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Ballroom Won’t Save Our Children
people walking on street during daytime
Photo by Chip Vincent on Unsplash

A Ballroom Won’t Save Our Children

When an active shooter threat disrupted the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the president and members of his cabinet were evacuated swiftly and efficiently. The threat ended with a shooter apprehended and a Truth Social post. Then President Trump returned to the podium, bypassing the persistence of gun violence in this country to make the case for his long-sought $400 million White House ballroom, one that would supposedly prevent criminals from entering the space. The solution to a potential mass killing was a bulletproof ballroom.

I was an elementary student when Columbine made school shootings a national emergency. The safe haven of school became a potential war zone overnight, and the fear that settled into children that year never fully left. But how could it? The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting happened when I was a new high school teacher. Parkland when I was a doctoral student. Uvalde during my first faculty position. The shooting at Brown University happened during my fifteenth year working in education. Gun violence has followed me the entire length of my educational career, from K-12 student to high school teacher to university professor. Nearly three decades later, I am still waiting for the final straw, the moment that produces gun reform and makes school feel safe again. Instead, I have more thoughts and prayers than ever, and no gun reform in sight.

Keep ReadingShow less
Death with Dignity: A Person's Right to Choose Life or Death

Funeral, cemetery and hands with rose on tombstone for remembrance, ceremony and memorial service. Depression, sadness and person with flower on gravestone for mourning, grief and loss in graveyard

Getty Images

Death with Dignity: A Person's Right to Choose Life or Death

There is much debate around the world regarding both physician-assisted dying legislation—often called "Death with Dignity"—and expanding the circumstances in which it is applicable. Eight countries and 19 states already permit it in some form.

It is controversial for many reasons. Part of the controversy stems from our cultural discomfort with death. Part of it results from the medical profession's focus on keeping people alive and its fear of malpractice suits. Part of it is religious.

Keep ReadingShow less