Democracy, from the ancient Greek demokratia, has come a long way from it’s Athenian origins. In the 21st century, we live in an age when the majority of the planet’s population lives under some form of democratic rule. However, democracy as defined by the early Greek model, between 461 and 322 BC, has come to take on a multifaceted meaning and function (Hague and Harrop, 2007).
Contemporarily, democracy can be understood as a procedure, as it has been from it’s origins; a way of governing. Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address extolled the virtues of modern democracy celebrating the “government of the people, by the people, for the people” (1864; Heywood, 2000). However, moreover from the right to representation, some forms of democracy are understood to represent certain goals for society, James Laxar writes:
“Essential features of contemporary democracy are the rights to free speech and assembly. Democracy also extends to the rule of law, to the right of those accused of crimes to fair and speedy trials, to freedom from arbitrary detention and the right to legal counsel.”
(Laxar,p10, 2010)
These democratic goals detailed by Laxar exemplify the role of democracy in the 21st century as much more than the right to vote. However, this very basic feature of modern democracy, suffrage, has developed greatly from it’s Greek origins.
Demokratia, meaning rule (kratos) by the people (demos) was literally translated in to the direct democracy of Athens. Citizens could attend assembly meetings and vote upon their content, serve on the governing council and sit on citizen juries in the People’s courts. The right to become involved in the Executive (assembly), Legislature (council) and Judiciary (courts) signified near complete involvement in political life. However, citizenship was only bestowed upon the male Athenians who had completed their military training, excluding foreign residents, women and slaves (Finley, 1985). Although the direct democracy of Athens is retrospectively criticised for it’s exclusivity and cumbersome processes, it’s contribution to the formation of modern democracy, indeed the founding of it, is exemplified by two factors: the invention of the citizen, rather than the subject, and the democratic voting process. From these two key features, modern democracies have flourished (Finer, 1997).
In 2011, no direct-democratic state exists; instead, representative democracy and elected governments have become common place. The election of an executive and a legislature, via means of public vote, open to all citizens, has become of increasing necessity throughout time as larger modern states emerge, requiring a form of democracy representative of far greater numbers of citizens. The direct democracy of Athens amassed a total of around forty thousand citizens in 322 BC, in the year 2000 AD, India’s representative democracy exceeded one billion.
However, not all representative democracies are similar. Liberal democracies are constitutionally limited in order to secure citizens’ individual liberty and protection from tyranny by majority, clearly relating to what Laxar describes as the “essential features of contemporary democracy” (Laxar, p10,2010; Held, 2006). This polyarchic form of democracy can take many forms; it may be a constitutional republic, such as the United States or Germany, or a constitutional monarchy, such as the United Kingdom or Spain, and it may implement a presidential, semi-presidential or parliamentary system of representation.
Opposingly, illiberal democracies uphold few rights other than suffrage. Weak judiciaries allow governments to rule with few limits and a disregard for civil liberties. Interference in the marketplace is common, as is indoctrinated media coverage, and harassment of political opponents. All features used to nullify any need to interfere with the physical voting process. Such behaviour has led to certain commentators to describe illiberal democracies as “electoral or competitive authoritarianism” (Hague & Harrop, p51, 2007; Korosteleva, 2004; Schedler, 2006). These illiberal democracies tend to arise where democracy is a new phenomenon, Zakaria writes; “since the fall of communism, countries around the world are being governed by regimes like Russia’s that mix elections and authoritarianism” (p61, 2003). However, many believe that illiberal democracy is the first step on the road to increased democracy, such as liberal democracy (LeDuc, Niemi & Norris, 2010).
Somewhere in between direct democracy and representative democracy, specifically representative liberal democracy, lays deliberative democracy. Simply, deliberative democracy promotes the involvement of citizens in law making. A contemporary example of deliberative democracy in action is the G1000 Citizen’s Summit in Belgium, November 2011. At the time of the summit Belgium’s representative democracy had been without government for over five hundred days, a result of budget, immigration and voting issues. This lead to the G1000 group’s formulation by independent citizens, none of whom were politicians, and the random sampling of 1000 Belgians to meet and discuss the nation’s major concerns, with the resulting suggestions later formulated in to policy proposals (Vermeesch, 2011). This pilot scheme of Belgian deliberative democracy called upon the work of American political thinker Ethan Leib (2004) and was undertaken with a view to becoming integrated into the representative model, calling upon the views and expertise of the electorate alongside the already established political landscape.
From these various definitions of democracy we understand that when comparing nations upon a democratic basis we must first look at the phenomenon’s most longstanding feature; the democratic voting process (LeDuc, Niemi & Norris, 2010).
In the recent December (2011) parliamentary elections in Russia, 60% voter turnout was reported, a drop of 4% from the 2007 elections (IDEA RF, 2011). Comparatively, voter turnouts for the United Kingdom’s parliamentary elections have scored similarly in recent years; 61% in 2005 and 66% in 2010 (IDEA UK ,2011).
Although the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system, and Russia is a constitutional semi-presidential federal republic, we understand both to be representative democracies, and upon the first investigations of democratic comparison, they appear very much alike with similar levels of voter turnout in recent parliamentary elections.
However, a look beyond the turnout of these elections and in to the underlying quantitative details reveals much more. The 2007 Russian parliamentary, or Duma, elections re-elected President Putin’s United Russia with a 64% share of the vote. In comparison the British General Election of 2010 afforded the party with the highest percentage of votes, much less. The Conservative party gained only 36% of the total number of votes made. Their two closest rivals, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats earned 29% and 23% respectively, indicating a much tighter contest than that of the Duma election. It is also worthy of note that a further nine parties gained or maintained representation in the House of Commons, taking the total to twelve. Only four parties earned representation in Russia in 2007.
Finally with regards to the democratic voting process, electoral reliability is steadfast in twenty-first century Britain and has been so for many years. Despite opposition, as in Russia, and many other representative democracies of the electoral system (Britain uses the first past the post system in parliamentary elections, Russia uses proportional representation), citizens in the United Kingdom understand the voting process to be free from corruption. Conversely, allegations of rigging have marred election results in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The Guardian Newspaper wrote on the 5th December 2011, of the recent elections:
“Russians continued to register alleged cases of falsification on Monday, and news reports on state television appeared to show results that implied turnout in some regions was as high as 146%.”
(Elder, 2011)
In comparison with the greatest allegations of results fixing in the United Kingdom in 2010- the denial of a number of citizens’ opportunity to vote in certain areas, most notably Sheffield Hallam, due to surpassing the 10pm deadline- these accusations of government intervention call in to question Russia’s democratic state (Weaver, 2010).
However, we are aware that there is more to the phenomenon of democracy than the process of voting. Further to suffrage, liberal democracies protect the rights of citizens and limit the power of the elected, whereas such assurances are not offered by their illiberal counterparts. As such we recognise the United Kingdom to be an example of a modern liberal democracy. Laxar’s aforementioned features of contemporary democracy, such as free speech, free association, and the right to a fair trial, are keenly protected by a strong judiciary, enshrined in constitutional and sovereign European law. Further to this a free market economy is maintained, with little government intervention. Free media operates, both public and private, insuring public discussion and opposition to government is available to all. Increased involvement in the legislative process is also emerging in Britain. The e-petitions service was introduced midway through 2011, allowing citizens to create online petitions with a view to directly influencing government policy via debate in House of Commons (Herlihy, 2011).
Opposingly, Russia is understood to formulate a type of illiberal democracy, with some accusations that this status is of too higher praise. Yet certain features of the civil liberties described as enshrined in the United Kingdom, are indeed active in Russia to some extents. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the introduction of the federalist republic, rights to free speech, association and fair trial dramatically increased by the standards which had previously been in place. However, such liberties in 21st century Russia appear to fall dramatically short of what is deemed to be internationally acceptable behaviour for a liberal state. In 2008, an Amnesty International report on Russia suggested that freedom of speech in the country was shrinking at an alarming rate under the Presidency of Vladimir Putin. In summary the Freedom Limited report detailed the most significant examples, saying “murders of outspoken journalists go unsolved, independent media outlets have been shut and police have attacked protestors” (BBC, 2008).
The centralisation of power in Russia is exemplified by the stronghold of the former President and current Prime Minister. Elected to the Presidency in 2000, Vladimir Putin remained the incumbent for the maximum of two consecutive terms, totalling eight years. Upon his departure, his replacement, Dmitry Medvedev, Putin’s preferred candidate also of the United Russia party, nominated the former President to the role of Prime Minister. This move was then approved by the Duma, in which the United Russia party held a two-thirds majority. This majority also later ratified the first amendments of the Russian constitution since it’s introduction in 1993 by approving the proposal to extend the presidential term from four to six year, securing the party’s grip on the Kremlin (Rossi, 2008). An extraordinary extension of Putin’s personal power was revealed in September 2011 when he revealed that he had accepted a proposal to stand for the presidency once again, and undertake a potential further twelve years as President, only four years after exiting the role. He also suggested that he would elect Medvedev as his Prime Minister (Economist, 2011; BBC, 2011). Critics of Putin suggest that he has enjoyed unparalleled levels of power throughout his career. Vladimir Ryzkhov, a Kremlin opponent said in 2008:
“The tsar was constrained by the aristocracy. The party bureaucracy controlled the general secretary. Today the president (Putin was President at the time of comment) controls parliament, the senate, regions, the bureaucracy and the security services, as well as oil and gas”
(Harding, 2008)
As we have come to appreciate, where democracy is concerned, there is often more to see than initially meets the eye. The United Russia party has near monopolised Russian political power in recent times, but at least in basic terms, this is not unfamiliar to the longstanding political governance we have seen in Britain in the 20th and 21st century. For eighteen years between 1979 and 1997, the Conservative party maintained a majority strong enough to form a government in the United Kingdom, and the following New Labour establishment remained in office for a further thirteen years between 1997 and 2010. If, like the Russian system, the term of President, or in Britain’s case Prime Minister, was a constitutionally limited timeframe, this may not have been possible.
Unlike Russia’s constitution, the United Kingdom’s has in recent times had it’s sovereign status called in to question. Through European Union membership, Britain foregoes certain law making powers, relinquishing them to the European courts. Although certain aspects of this are seen to increase democratic status, for example the full implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights in to British law via the Human Rights Act 1998, increasing civil liberties in the UK, the surrender of sovereign legislative authority, entrusted in parliament via means of a public mandate, is seen to undermine the electoral process in Britain. In 2010, thirty million British citizens took to the polling station to elect a government, one year prior to that, half of that number voted in European Parliament elections, representing 34% of the electorate.
Moreover from democracy, several other aspects of political comparison could lead us to determine varied conclusions on any nation. With regards to the United Kingdom and Russia, aspects such as devolution, race, ethnicity and religion could be used to portray an in depth analysis of the two. Russia’s federalist republic is of a vast political scale, comprising eighty three subject states ranging from the Ural district of Udmurt to the Siberian state of Tomsk Oblast. Conversely, the United Kingdom consists of four nations; England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The varying degree to which centralised power in both Russia and the UK is devolved to these bodies is immensely different. Similarly, the ethnic, racial and religious diversity of these two states is particularly converse, as are the issues surrounding them. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the initial emergence of fifteen new independent states, such as Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, very great ethnic conflict occurred in both of the named states, as well as in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia (Heywood, 2007). Issues of race, religion and ethnicity in Britain have also been prominent in recent times. For the latter half of the 20th, and into the 21st century, Britain suffered great threat from Irish Republicanism. However, following the turn of the millennium an increasing focus has been placed upon the threat of Islamic extremism.
As a politically comparative tool, democracy has come to reveal much more than the voter turnout of the nations in hand, instead deeply investigating the rights and liberties of a nation’s citizens, whether it be the right to free speech, the right to stand as a presidential candidate, or the right to propose a petition. We have come to understand the phenomenon of democracy to be a complex one, and no form of democratic state can simply be defined as good or bad. Some are broadly similar with regards to the civil liberties they appear to protect or not protect, and this has led to the established terminology of “liberal” and “illiberal” democracies; however within these categories fall many greater distinctions. In conclusion, used as a tool for comparison, democracy has proved to be an overarching one; delving in to many greater aspects of a nation’s politics than it superficially appears to.
Bibliography
BBC, News (2008). Free speech ‘shrinking’ in Russia. [online]. Last accessed 12 December at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7264033.stm
BBC, News (2008). Russia approves presidency bill. [online]. Last accessed 12 December at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7795310.stm
BBC, News (2010). Belgium swears in new government by Elio Di Ruppo. [online]. Last accessed 12 December at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16042750
BBC, News (2011). Russia’s Putin set to return as president in 2012. [online]. Last accessed 12 December at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15045816
BECK, Thorsten, CLARKE, George, GROFF, Alberto, KEEFER, Philipp and WALSH, Patrick (2001). New Tools in Comparative Political Economy: The Database of Political Institutions. The World Bank Economic Review. 15(1), 165-176
BLYTHE, Daniel (2010). X Marks the box. London, Icon Books.
ECONOMIST, The (2010). The new dissidents. [online]. Last accessed 12 December at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/07/free_speech_russia
ECONOMIST, The (2011). Russia’s humiliator-chief. [online]. Last accessed 12 December at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2011/09/return-putin?page=6
ELDER, Miriam (2011). Putin shaken by United Russia’s poor election performance. [online]. Last accessed 12 December at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/05/putin-united-russia-election
FINER, S. (1997). The History of Government from the Earliest Times, 3 vols. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
FINLEY, M. (1985). Democracy Ancient and Modern. London, Hogarth Press.
HAGUE, Rod and Martin HARROP (2007). Comparative Government and Politics. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
HARDING, Luke (2008). Russian vote paves way for early Putin comeback. [online]. Last accessed 12 December at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/14/russia-putin
HELD, D. (2006). Models of Democracy, 3rd ed. Cambridge, Polity Press.
HERLIHY, Peter (2011). E-petitions: the first 100 days. [online]. Last accessed 12 December at: http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/2011/11/15/e-petitions-the-first-100-days/
HEYWOOD, Andrew (2000). Key concepts in politics. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
HEYWOOD, Andrew (2007). Politics. 3rd Edition. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
HEYWOOD, Andrew (2011). Global Politics. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
IDEA RF,(2011). Voter turnout data for Russian Federation. [online]. Last accessed 12 December at: http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?id=191
IDEA UK, (2011). Voter turnout data for United Kingdom. [online]. Last accessed 12 December at: http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?id=77
KOROSTELVA, E. (2004). The quality of Democracy in Belarus and Ukrain. Journal of Communist and Transition Politics. 20(1), 122-142.
LAXAR, James (2010). Democracy. London, A&C Black.
LeDUC, Lawrence, NIEMI, Richard and NORRIS, Pippa (2010). Comparing Democracies 3. London, Sage.
LEIB, Ethan (2004). Deliberative democracy in America: A proposal for a Popular Branch of Government. Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania University Press.
LINCOLN, Abraham (1864). The Gettysburg Address. Republished by in 2010 by Penguin.
O’DONNELLl, Guillermo A.(2002). Democracy, Law, and Comparative Politics. Studies in Comparative International Development. 36(1), 7-36
ROSSI, Alex (2008). Move to let Putin Re-take Power. [online]. Last accessed 12 December at: http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15151557
SCHEDLER, A. (ed.) (2006). Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree competition. London, Lynne Rienner.
VERMEERSCH, Peter (2011). G1000: Deliberative democracy in Belguim. [online]. Last accessed 14 December at: http://www.deliberative-democracy.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=178:g1000&catid=1:general&Itemid=68
WEALE, Albert (2007). Democracy, 2nd Edition. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
WEAVER, Matthew (2010). General election 2010: Polling stations lock out hundreds of voters. [online]. Last accessed 12 December at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/07/election-polling-stations-lock-out
ZAKARIA, F. (2003). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. London, Norton.
No comments:
Post a Comment