 |
Scandals
should not be seen as an argument against democracy
|
«Scandals are a part of democracy»
according to one of Germany's most experienced journalists. He was commenting on
the recent affair surrounding ex-Chancellor Helmut Kohl and others at the head of
the Christian Democratic Union party following the dramatic uncovering of illegal
party donations and other irregular financial practices. But is this statement
right?
To begin with
scandals with the greatest significance - and more often than not the ones with
the greatest political impact - tend to occur in mature established democracies.
This is true of the Watergate Affair in America where, during his second term in
office, president Nixon resigned rather than face almost certain impeachment in
Congress. It also applies to the so-called "Spiegelaffäre" in
Germany in the sixties during which the then defence minister Franz Josef Strauss
was temporarily forced out of the government. Other well-known post-war scandals
include the Flick Affair (this also concerned hidden financial wheeling and
dealing of party finances) and the scandal surrounding the real-estate empire
built up by the German trades union movement «Neue Heimat».
[Back
to top of page]
We might also consider other
affairs such as the sinking of an observation vessel belonging to the
environmentalist pressure group Greenpeace by French secret agents - a deadly
attack in which the government led by
Mitterrand had a hand. More recently there were revelations about corrupt
financial dealings and favoritism by leading political parties in Italy - the
consequence of which was a break up of Italy's post-war, party-political
structure. The investigations carried out by Special State Attorney Starr into
the affairs of president Clinton also captured global attention. Starr's
investigations resulted in the uncovering of a highly embarrassing sex affair
and a failed impeachment process against the president in Congress. Even
Switzerland's seasoned democracy has not been immune to recent scandals - from
the "Fichenaffäre" to the Kopp case to internal and external controversy
about dormant accounts.
The
theory, which states that scandals of this kind actually lead to a strengthening
of democracy in the country affected, might indeed be difficult to disprove.
Real scandals (in contrast to artificial ones) and the way in which they are
dealt with politically and constitutionally provide evidence that the control
measures in place are actually effective and working. The often-expressed
concern that affairs such as this represent a crisis for democracy is quite
wrong. They actually represent a crucial test. Democracy without scandals would,
at the very least, be suspect - unless, of course, we really believe in a
perfect world and society in which no one is open to corruption and other
abuses. In a democracy, however, when political controversy is revealed to the
public it is subject to correction either by the electorate at the ballot box,
by the judiciary or by other constitutional institutions.
[Back
to top of page]
Political and financial scandals
have also come to public attention in Eastern Europe since the fall of communism.
Compared to the previous situation in which countries were subjected to a system
of one-party rule, this is without doubt a positive indication of increased
openness. Nevertheless, political and judicial intervention into cases of
corruption or misuse of power is relatively new to the Russian system of «semi-democracy».
Improvements to the current situation are mostly dependent on economic progress,
which would also greatly enhance the poor living conditions of the majority of
Russians. Without economic progress it will remain relatively easy for those
with close ties to the Kremlin and who want to manipulate public opinion to
avoid the consequences common in more "mature" democracies, that is,
comprehensive clarification of the situation and a real loss of power for those
involved. Financial wheeling and dealings by oligarchic power groups uncovered
externally from abroad might help in getting to the bottom of such scandals.
Examples for this are provided by the Mabetex case or the more recent and
successful conviction of the former prime minister of the Ukraine, Lasarenko, in
Geneva.
While political
affairs are unavoidable in a working democracy, the consequences for those
involved seldom carry a greater historic price. At the end of the day and
provided real reason exists, scandals create temporary public excitement. As
time passes the real significance of the scandal becomes clearer and it becomes
just one of many factors in any given historical period. Those subjected to an avalanche
of one-sided dogmatic condemnation during a surge of public outrage can, with
the passing of time, expect to be regarded by history in a much more merciful
and balanced way. Richard Nixon, the "villain" of the Watergate
Affair, was treated with respect as an author, international traveler and elder
statesman in his later years. The affair surrounding the DDR spy, Guillaume,
which resulted in the resignation of the former German Chancellor Willy Brandt,
is already a half-forgotten episode in the vita of the famous SDP politician.
[Back
to top of page]
Helmut Kohl, well known for his
good memory, is probably fairly confident that history will regard the current
outrage around the dubious manipulation of party donations, which is totally
overshadowing his lifework in politics at the moment, as being a closed matter.
Indeed, there is every indication to suggest that history books will look upon
Kohl's actions with dubious accounts and illegal donations as nothing but a
footnote to a huge political career that included leading Germany to reunification
following the collapse of communism. Who knows, history might even honour Kohl's
high-handed handling of party finances as being the clever manoeuvrings of an unscrupulous
politician with higher goals. Is there anyone around today that would criticize
Bismarck's secret «Reptilienfonds», with whose help he persuaded the financially
insecure king of Bavaria, Ludwig II, to agree to the foundation of the German
empire? Admittedly, democracy was in its infancy when Bismarck was in power.
Nevertheless,
Kohl should ask himself whether a realist like Bismarck would have refused to
reveal the names of the illegal donators, while hiding behind a questionable
word of honour. Kohl's actions have led to a drawn-out and highly damaging debate
about "Kohl's system" within his own party.
[Back
to top of page]
In a democracy, political scandals
place considerable demands on the public and the media. The media usually plays
a central role in uncovering affairs. The demand for increased newspaper
circulations and higher viewing figures, however, often means that affairs are
blown out of proportion. A scandal often has the effect of exposing
double standards across a wide range of areas - and not only among politicians.
Responsible citizens should not be put off of politics by affairs such as this.
On the contrary, in order to find out exactly what is going on, they should pay
greater attention to the affair.
[translated from: R. M., Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 8. Juli 2000]
[Back
to top of page]
