|
|
|
|
Overview:
Worldwide victory for liberal democracy? In March 1985, Michail Gorbatschow was elected General Secretary of the KPdSU. He was quick to introduce a number of wide-ranging reforms with the goal of leading the Soviet Union out of economic crisis and stagnation. His intention was not to adopt western democratic ideals, but to make the Soviet Union fit for the challenges of the present and the future by introducing reforms (Perestroika) and making decisions more transparent (Glasnost). The developments that followed - albeit unintentionally - led to a collapse of the system of "real existing socialism" and, apparently, to the worldwide victory of liberal democracy. In view of this victory, a word of warning is perhaps fitting: Democracy has always faced great challenges in the past and is sure to do so in the future. Democracy during the 20th century — ways in which it was endangered and successful The short historical overview might serve in calling to mind the changing history of democracy during the 20th century and highlighting the way in which it was endangered and successful. Authoritarian systems began to establish themselves across Europe around 1930. Democracy and liberalism seemed to have served their purpose. After 1945, democracy enjoyed a renaissance, which, over the long-term, the remaining authoritarian systems in Spain, Portugal and Greece were not able to resist. The liberal model of democracy so widespread in the West, however, was not adopted and was actively resisted by the socialistic democracies in the Eastern Block counties. These socialist systems gained support in the west from around 1968 onwards. With the collapse of almost all "real existing socialism" systems, the triumphant advance of the Western model of democracy over all other competing systems seemed to be complete. How did a situation come about in which the apparently insecure liberal democracies were able to assert themselves against seemingly secure revolutionary-totalitarian systems (Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin), bureaucratic-totalitarian systems (Breschnew, Ulbricht/Honecker) and authoritarian systems (Spain, Portugal, Greece) to such an extent that liberal democracy became something of a model and was actually introduced in these countries? Alexander Jakowlew, one of the leading reformers in the former Soviet Union, saw the superiority of democracy as being threefold:
The feeling of satisfaction about the triumph of a system that in the past had been belittled and regarded as having served its purpose should not distract us from the fact that nothing is final. The fate of democracy during the 20th century demonstrates that changes can also have negative effects. A good example of this is provided by the fate of democracy in Algeria, where, on the 26th December 1991, parliamentary elections resulted in victory for the Islamic Holy Front. This party's declared aim was to do away with western democracy and introduce an Islamic theocracy, that is, government by God. However, Algeria's military decided to prevent this development and arrested the leaders of the winning party. Therefore, using undemocratic means, the military prevented the "sovereign", the electorate, from doing away with democracy and introducing a totalitarian system, although they had used democratic means to do it. We are, admittedly, dealing with a problematic issue here, whose justification can be found in the historic recognition that the basic rights to freedom should not be at the disposition of the electorate. (...) At the same time, however, the Algerian example demonstrates the importance of social security for a working democracy. As ever, two opposing trends wrestle with each other in western democracies: On one side is the democratic trend towards the will of codetermination and participation of principally equal citizens; on the other side a trend towards oligarchy. The complicated nature of this political and public structure means that experts and specialists are needed to prepare and make decisions in narrow and limited areas. The arrival of mass organizations and political parties created a form of democracy in which codetermination and "expertocracy" were united. Political parties became an indispensable tool around which self-organizing people could make themselves capable of action. The will of the people can only appear in political parties, which act as active political units (...). It's a fact that minorities also play a part in getting the political process going and in keeping it moving. Criticism has been directed against a parliamentary-based representative system of government that is supported by political parties and in which elected representatives are mistrustful of the sovereign, the people. The explanation for this fact can be found in an expansion of the state's activities and in the increasingly complicated and unclear nature of society. The feeling many people have of not being affected by the political process or that they are helpless in the face of it leads to political apathy. This leads to a situation in which the passive majority find themselves up against informed and qualified experts, who have little contact to those affected. Consequently, large sections of the population react in a range of ways from a lack of understanding, to rejection, to open rebellion and the use of violence. It is obvious that these developments represent a danger for the consensus so necessary for democracy to work Global changes are connected to the current signs of crisis. We are living through a period of constant change and re-evaluation of values. The seething contradictions of our times are expressed in a common crisis awareness, which makes a diagnosis of the present situation necessary. Finding an answer to the question of where we come from, where we are and where we are going is not self-evident, but must be searched for laboriously. The awareness of crises in the nation or constitutional state is now embedded into a wider global awareness of crisis. The optimism that characterized the sixties and early seventies and which was based on advances has been replaced by worldwide pessimism. People are worried about the following developments:
The constitutional state and democracy are inseparable (...) There are very good reasons for preserving parliamentary, representative democracy and they have to be made clear to all citizens. Historical experience clearly shows that today's constitutional state is unthinkable without democracy. Society's complexity makes the need for public controls necessary, if we are to prevent uncontrolled rule, that is, an almost dictatorship-like power base arising. And while this might not mean the coming to power of a single dictator, it might well take the form of an uncontrolled expertocracy or - worse still - rule by uninformed, emotional and manipulated masses. Back at the beginning of the 20th century, it was still believed that a constitutional state could exist without democracy. Today, however, the constitutional state and democracy are inseparably bound. Ideological pluralism has to be able to express itself freely, while the state must remain ideologically neutral. All ideological bonds mean suppression of dissidents (...). These thoughts mean that we have come full circle in our reflection of democracy (...). If a dictatorship represents a danger to democracy, then the possibility of tyranny from a majority characterized by passion and irrationality is equally dangerous and harmful. Representative democracy secured through institutions and mutual control by several powers and in which a working legal system subdues irrationality and passion provides a way countering this. All that is needed is for these institutions to be accepted by the people and for elected representatives not to distance themselves from the electorate (...). A reasonable level of public participation to counter the specter of a "spectator democracy" and to strengthen a feeling of responsibility for the system might present one way of enabling democracy to develop as necessary and to adjust to the requirements of our times. [Hans-Helmuth Knütter; taken from: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung: Demokratie, Informationen zur politischen Bildung Nr. 165, Neudruck 1992] [Back to top of page] |
|
Subjects: Human
Rights I Democracy I Parties
I Examples I
Europe
I
Globalisation
I United Nations
I Sustainability
|
