2. Nov. 2013

Ukrainian Week

Facing the Crisis of Democracy


The failures of democracy need precise and critical,
not diplomatic comments

Democracy is a mosaic of hundreds of small and big constituents, and it is moving constantly. Many parts, such as rights and institutions, are not stable. Not all of them move in the good direction. But all of them combined define the quality of democracy in a specific moment.

Today, a lot of these elements see a regress in many countries. The quality of public debate declines and big media prefer scandals over substance. National democracies are subject to markets and too weak to civilise them. Parties no longer represent the majority of society. That is why many talk of the crisis of democracy. Some write that we have reached a «post-democratic» time; that democracy is no longer real, no more than a smokescreen. That is painful. But we have to face it in order to know what we have to do to restore it.

Elections are a big constitutive part in the democratic mosaic. In too many of the 57 member-states of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as well as in 47 member-states of the Council of Europe (CoE), democracy is weak because the quality of the election process is bad. As a result, political power lacks legitimacy, is often misused and does not respect human rights or the general interest of people.

This October, many Europeans witnessed such failed presidential election in Azerbaijan, and were astonished that not all observers stated what has to be said when the quality of democracy is served, not the interest of those who get power illegitimately. I observed the preparation for this election in the PACE Monitoring Committee and the day before the election in Gedebey, a very rural municipality on the feet of the South Caucasus, 440 km away from Baku. OSCE delegates – experts who observed the campaign for several months, as well as short-term observers – all came to a clear conclusion: «The presidential election in Azerbaijan was undermined by limitations on the freedoms of expression, assembly and association that did not guarantee a level playing field for candidates. Continued allegations of candidate and voter intimidation and a restrictive media environment marred the campaign. Significant problems were observed throughout all stages of election day processes and underscored the serious shortcomings that need to be addressed in order for Azerbaijan to fully meet its OSCE commitments for genuine and democratic elections.»

With this statement, OSCE delegates showed that the quality of an election cannot be judged by just one day when citizens actually vote.

However, the majority of PACE delegates ignored the obligation to look at the whole process, in which even a director of a CoE political school was arrested and prevented from being a candidate. Instead, they concentrated on what they saw with their own eyes on the election day and came to a statement which was not well understood: «Overall around election day we have observed a free, fair and transparent electoral process. (...) From what we have seen, electoral procedures on the eve and on election day have been carried out in a professional and peaceful way. (...) On election day we did not witness any evidence of intimidation against voters, in or close to polling stations. (...) However, improvements are still desirable with regards to the electoral framework, notably concerning the respect of fundamental freedoms during the months before the election.»

The biggest surprise for me came from OSCE Acting Chairman and Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, Leonid Kozhara. »In these statements the international observers conclude that a number of aspects of the conduct of the Presidential Election in Azerbaijan showed progress towards meeting the OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and other international standards for democratic elections, while also outlining the areas which need to be further improved. (...) In this regard, I congratulate the people and the leadership of Azerbaijan on this achievement that represents an important step forward in democratic development of their country,» his statement said.

Many of the people of Azerbaijan showed immediately what they thought about such a statement at a protest that took place the next weekend after the election in Baku. The statement may have pleased the winner, the oligarchs and the energy-supply needs of many, but it had nothing to do with political truth or the quality of democracy. The Ukrainian Minister also committed the faux pas to refer himself to «international observers» who where invited and paid by the regime and do not live up to the Copenhagen Criteria – the reference for evaluation of elections for the international community.

Such conceptual and diplomatic mistakes do not help restore democracy in Europe. Those who want to do this have to face the facts and name the shortcomings clearly. Only then we may learn which stones in our mosaic have to be repaired and how this has to be done. Then we can stop the regression and improve the democratic process, knowing that this effort will never end.

The crisis of democracy is painful. But we have to face it in order to know what we have to do to restore it.


Andreas Gross is a Swiss political scientist, an expert on the quality of democracy. He lectures at different European universities, serves as Swiss MP and leader of the Social Democrats in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

READ ALSO:
Usurpation in the Name of Europe

READ ALSO:
Steven Pifer: this is no time for Yanukovych to miscalculate



-----------------------



Below you can read the original full text:

The failures of cornerstones of the mosaic of democracy need precise and critical, not diplomatic comments

Democracy is a mosaic of many hundred bigger and smaller constitutive parts. Many parts are not stable (rights, institutions) but on the move (openness of the media, fairness of the process). Not all of them in the good direction. But all of them define together the quality of democracy in a specific moment. In this sense democracy is a complete moving piece of art, the Germans talk about a «Gesamtkunstwerk in Bewegung».

Therefor Democracy is always a process. Never ending. Always unfinished. Like an asymptote, the curb that – when all elements move in the right direction – comes always closer to the axe, but touches it only eternally, that means to be seen for human beings. Nevertheless, not always most of the constitutive elements of democracy are moving in the right direction. Today for instance, in many countries, many of them are regressing. The quality of the public debate is in a regress, big media are more interested in scandals than substance. National democracies are object of the markets and too weak to civilise them. Parties do not represent anymore the majority of the society. That is why many people say that Democracy is in a crisis. Others write even, that we already reached a «post-democratic» time; democracy is not real anymore, not more than a smokescreen. That would be dramatic. But we would have to face it. In order to know, what we have to do to restore it.

Elections are a big constitutive part in the democratic mosaic. It is so important for the whole quality because by elections citizens create legitimate political power. By voting for a person or a party citizens transfer power to a president or a parliament and enable them make important decisions, which affect the life of the citizens.

But elections too are processes. And the quality of this process depends from the quality of other parts of the mosaic of democracy: Several freedoms (of opinion, of association, of the media) as well as the independence of the Electoral bodies, the fairness of the campaign, the access to media and many more.

In too many of the 57 member states of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as well as in the 47 member states of the Council of Europe (CoE) democracy is weak, because the quality of the election process is bad. Therefore, the political power lacks legitimacy, is often misused and does respect neither Human Rights nor the general interest of the people. Such illegitimate governments do not enable the citizens to be free and undermine the security and the transnational cooperation in the region. That is why we all have an interest to recognize such failures in order to learn what has to be done to prevent more damage to more people and to repair the bad stones in the mosaic. Otherwise, we cannot stop the decline of democracy in Europe.

Last October many Europeans witnessed such failed elections and were astonished that not all observers stated what has to be said when you want to serve the quality of democracy and not the interest of illegitimate powers. I am speaking of the presidential elections in Azerbaijan from the 9th of October. I observed the preparation and the context of these elections in the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Pace) and the day before and the election day itself in Gedeby, a very rural municipality on the feet of the South-Caucasian mountains, 440 km away from Baku.

The delegates of the OSCE, who include observers who are present in the regions for several months as well as professional experts and short-time observers came to a clear conclusion. They stated: «The presidential election in Azerbaijan was undermined by limitations on the freedoms of expression, assembly and association that did not guarantee a level playing field for candidates. Continued allegations of candidate and voter intimidation and a restrictive media environment marred the campaign. Significant problems were observed throughout all stages of election day processes and underscored the serious shortcomings that need to be addressed in order for Azerbaijan to fully meet its OSCE commitments for genuine and democratic elections.»

With this statement, the OSCE-delegates showed that you cannot judge the quality of a election by limiting your focus on the election day. Otherwise, you miss the process, that makes an election, and you are mislead. The common reference point of all those who have to qualify an election, the Copenhagen-Criteria of the OSCE-summit of 1990 illustrates this clearly, when it says: «Free elections will be held at reasonable intervals by secret ballot (…), under conditions which ensure in practice the free expression of the opinion of the electors in the choice of their representatives; respect the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties or other political organizations and provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities; (…)ensure that law and public policy work to permit political campaigning to be conducted in a fair and free atmosphere in which neither administrative action, violence nor intimidation bars the parties and the candidates from freely presenting their views and qualifications, or prevents the voters from learning and discussing them or from casting their vote free of fear of retribution (…).»

The majority of the PACE-delegates ignored the obligation to look to the whole process, in which even a director of a CoE-political school was arrested and prevented from being a candidate and concentrated on what they saw with their own eyes on the election day and came to a statement which was not well understood. They said: «Overall around election day we have observed a free, fair and transparent electoral process. (...) From what we have seen, electoral procedures on the eve and on election day have been carried out in a professional and peaceful way. (...) On election day we did not witness any evidence of intimidation against voters, in or close to polling stations. (...) However, improvements are still desirable with regards to the electoral framework, notably concerning the respect of fundamental freedoms during the months before the election.»

However, the biggest surprise for me was the statement of the acting Chairman of the OSCE, the foreign minister from Ukraine, Leonid Kozhara. He nearly ignored the fruits of the engagement of «his workers» and turned a clear digression in a «progress». Koszhara said: «In these statements the international observers conclude that a number of aspects of the conduct of the Presidential Election in Azerbaijan showed progress towards meeting the OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and other international standards for democratic elections, while also outlining the areas which need to be further improved. (...) In this regard, I congratulate the people and the leadership of Azerbaijan on this achievement that represents an important step forward in democratic development of their country.»

Many of «the people» of Azerbaijan showed immediately, what they thought about such a statement (see the Photo from a manifestation, which was held the weekend after the election-day in Baku),



which might please the winner, the oligarchs and the energy-supply-needs of many, but neither the political truth nor the quality of a cornerstone of the mosaic of democracy. The Ukrainian minister committed also the faux pas to refer himself to «international observers» who where invited and paid by the regime and do not live up to the Copenhagen-Criteria, which serve as reference for the international community when elections have to be evaluated.

Such conceptual and diplomatic mistakes do not serve the interest to restore democracy in Europe. Those who want to do this have to face the facts and have to name clearly the shortcomings and the regressive elements. Only then we might learn, which stones in our mosaic have to be repaired and how this has to be done. Then we can stop the regression and improve the democratic process, knowing that this effort will never end.


Kontakt mit Andreas Gross