Tweet
Economist, UK
Dec 6 2007
Down with democracy
Dec 6th 2007
>From Economist.com
A democratic vote is necessary, but not sufficient
WHAT could be more democratic than an election that reflects the
majority's will? Opinion polls consistently give Vladimir Putin,
Russia's president, an approval rating above 80%. So his party's
thumping election victory on December 2nd simply shows that Russia is
being governed as its people wish. If the rest of the world doesn't
like it, then the rest of the world had better mind its own business.
Actually, it shouldn't. Democracy is a slippery concept. It has
become a hooray-word, with lots of loosely defined positive
associations, but it is worth remembering that it used to be a
boo-word, with lots of negative ones.
AFP
Whose will?For most of the 19th century it was a synonym for mob rule
(for which the lovely but little-used `ochlocracy' would be an even
more precise term). Democracy as a term came into fashion during the
1930s, as a counterpoint to the then fashionable autocratic regimes
in most of continental Europe. Since then it has become stretched and
debased, almost to the point of uselessness.
The trouble with democracy is that the vote in itself means so
little. Everything depends on who is allowed to vote, who selects the
candidates or drafts the question, and what happens in the years,
months, weeks and days beforehand. That raises harder questions about
the rule of law, public-spiritedness, and the strength of
fair-minded, disinterested institutions.
The Soviet Union held a referendum in March 1991 asking (some) voters
`Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign
republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any
nationality will be fully guaranteed?'
Was that a `democratic' vote? The drafters of the question certainly
thought so. But the Baltic states regarded it as a fix: their peoples
had already voted for parliaments that were trying to regain
independence from the Kremlin as soon as possible. Yet their
decisions in turn were termed illegitimate by the men in Moscow.
Particularly when coupled with ethnic self-determination, `democracy'
can be a recipe for disaster, in which multi-ethnic countries
splinter into smaller and smaller units, with tempers fraying and the
danger of violence growing. Kosovo has voted clearly for independence
from Serbia. But if that claim rests solely on popular will, why
should not the Serbian enclaves in Kosovo themselves vote to secede?
And if that were allowed, what about the Serb regions of Bosnia,
which was so painfully re-stitched into a multi-ethnic country again
at Dayton?
Popular will is important but not enough. An entity that secedes must
be viable, either by joining another country, or making a legitimate
go of independence. Historical context matters too: Kosovo's claim to
statehood is strengthened by its history as a constituent province of
the old Yugoslavia, and even more so by the fact that its people
suffered a near-genocidal attack by Slobodan Milosevic's regime in
Belgrade.
Even more important is a willingness to accommodate the outside
world's scruples and standards. Hostility towards ethnic minorities,
for example, undermines the case for independence. Until the
breakaway states of the Caucasus (Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
Nagorno-Karabakh) are willing to offer a safe and attractive life to
refugees returning from Georgia and Azerbaijan, they will find little
support.
In guaranteeing good government, `democracy' is the wrong tool: a
hammer in place of a screwdriver. The unpleasant paradox is that the
countries that most need strong institutions and a law-based state
are the ones least likely to have them. So Russia's election result
may look like a thumping democratic mandate, but it is merely a
rigged plebiscite that confirms the continued rule of junta of
ex-spooks.
http://www.economist.com/world/eur ope/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10240058
Dec 6 2007
Down with democracy
Dec 6th 2007
>From Economist.com
A democratic vote is necessary, but not sufficient
WHAT could be more democratic than an election that reflects the
majority's will? Opinion polls consistently give Vladimir Putin,
Russia's president, an approval rating above 80%. So his party's
thumping election victory on December 2nd simply shows that Russia is
being governed as its people wish. If the rest of the world doesn't
like it, then the rest of the world had better mind its own business.
Actually, it shouldn't. Democracy is a slippery concept. It has
become a hooray-word, with lots of loosely defined positive
associations, but it is worth remembering that it used to be a
boo-word, with lots of negative ones.
AFP
Whose will?For most of the 19th century it was a synonym for mob rule
(for which the lovely but little-used `ochlocracy' would be an even
more precise term). Democracy as a term came into fashion during the
1930s, as a counterpoint to the then fashionable autocratic regimes
in most of continental Europe. Since then it has become stretched and
debased, almost to the point of uselessness.
The trouble with democracy is that the vote in itself means so
little. Everything depends on who is allowed to vote, who selects the
candidates or drafts the question, and what happens in the years,
months, weeks and days beforehand. That raises harder questions about
the rule of law, public-spiritedness, and the strength of
fair-minded, disinterested institutions.
The Soviet Union held a referendum in March 1991 asking (some) voters
`Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign
republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any
nationality will be fully guaranteed?'
Was that a `democratic' vote? The drafters of the question certainly
thought so. But the Baltic states regarded it as a fix: their peoples
had already voted for parliaments that were trying to regain
independence from the Kremlin as soon as possible. Yet their
decisions in turn were termed illegitimate by the men in Moscow.
Particularly when coupled with ethnic self-determination, `democracy'
can be a recipe for disaster, in which multi-ethnic countries
splinter into smaller and smaller units, with tempers fraying and the
danger of violence growing. Kosovo has voted clearly for independence
from Serbia. But if that claim rests solely on popular will, why
should not the Serbian enclaves in Kosovo themselves vote to secede?
And if that were allowed, what about the Serb regions of Bosnia,
which was so painfully re-stitched into a multi-ethnic country again
at Dayton?
Popular will is important but not enough. An entity that secedes must
be viable, either by joining another country, or making a legitimate
go of independence. Historical context matters too: Kosovo's claim to
statehood is strengthened by its history as a constituent province of
the old Yugoslavia, and even more so by the fact that its people
suffered a near-genocidal attack by Slobodan Milosevic's regime in
Belgrade.
Even more important is a willingness to accommodate the outside
world's scruples and standards. Hostility towards ethnic minorities,
for example, undermines the case for independence. Until the
breakaway states of the Caucasus (Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
Nagorno-Karabakh) are willing to offer a safe and attractive life to
refugees returning from Georgia and Azerbaijan, they will find little
support.
In guaranteeing good government, `democracy' is the wrong tool: a
hammer in place of a screwdriver. The unpleasant paradox is that the
countries that most need strong institutions and a law-based state
are the ones least likely to have them. So Russia's election result
may look like a thumping democratic mandate, but it is merely a
rigged plebiscite that confirms the continued rule of junta of
ex-spooks.
http://www.economist.com/world/eur ope/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10240058