Democracy Index 2011. Democracy under stress

Democracy under stress

21 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011

TM

There are a number of possible reasons for this fragility. Most important is that although democratic

forms are in place in the region, much of the substance of democracy, including a political culture

based on trust, is absent. This is manifested in low levels of political participation beyond voting

(and even turnout at elections is low in many countries), and very low levels of public confidence in

institutions. A key underlying factor is that transition has resulted in a large stratum of discontented

voters who feel that they have lost out. Another problem in the region is that party politics is

fragmented, primarily reflecting the shallow roots of many parties and low voter identification with

parties.

Some negative trends have recently got worse. Hungary is perhaps the prime example among

the EU’s new member states in the region. In the April 2010 election, an extreme nationalist party,

Jobbik, gathered almost as many votes as the former ruling Socialists. Since winning a two thirds

parliamentary majority in the election, the centre-right Fidesz party has systematically been taking

over the country’s previously independent institutions: the presidency, the state audit office and the

media council are now all run by party placemen. Electoral reforms have undermined the opposition

and smaller parties.

Although the formal trappings of democracy remain in place, today’s Russia has been called a

“managed” (or “stage managed”) democracy. All the main decisions are made by a small group

of insiders. The Duma is now little more than a rubber-stamp parliament; regional governors are

appointed directly; the main media are state-controlled; civil society organisations have come under

pressure; and the state has increased its hold over the economy.

The announcement in September 2011 that the prime minister, Vladimir Putin, will seek to return

to the presidency (a post that he occupied in 2000-08) was a retrograde and cynical step. It marked a

decisive step in Russia’s long-running slide towards outright authoritarianism. The decision has made

a mockery of the institution of the presidency and the electoral process. It has exposed the Medvedev

presidency as a charade used by Mr Putin to stay in power. Democracy is perhaps above all about the

rotation of power. Weak institutions in Russia mean that Mr Putin’s return to power marks a dangerous

transformation of his rule into a highly personalistic regime. Mr Putin will be legally eligible for two sixyear

terms, ruling until 2024—almost a quarter of a century after he first became president, in 2000-

-when he will be 71 years old. The parliamentary election on December 4th 2011 was deeply flawed; it

was neither free nor fair.

Дата добавления: 2015-09-04