Democracy with adjectives

Fragment of the book of Grigory Vilosov "Autocracy, or loneliness of power"

At the end of May, another book was published at the European University Publishing House in the popular science series of “ABC of concepts”-this time the work of the famous political scientist Grigory Golosov, dedicated to autocracy. Modern autocracies are, as a rule, electoral authoritarian regimes in which there are democratic institutions (multi -party system, elections, parliament), but only as an entourage. In fact, under such regimes, the people do not have the actual opportunity to influence the composition of the authorities and their policy. With the permission of the publishing house, Gorky publishes a fragment of the head of “Autocracy Today”, from which you will learn how liberal democracy differs from “democracies with adjectives” and why only the current president can win the elections in electoral autocracies.

Electoral authoritarianism: the origin of the concept

This story is quite complicated. The story about it can be started with the stormy discussions that were conducted at the peak of the “third wave of democratization”, in the 90s of the last century. Many countries that abandoned military and communist regimes, and sometimes from monarchies, have acquired democratic institutions then. They introduced multi -party systems, the elections directly to the presidents and representative parliaments. These institutions were not fictitious, but at the same time it was clear that it was far from full -blooded democracy in these countries. In order to somehow fix this difference, some scientists began to use adjectives that somehow qualified the concept of democracy in relation to these phenomena.

"Democracy with adjectives"

The monument of this era was the article by the American political scientists David Kolera and Stephen Levitsky “Democracy with the adjective” Collier D., Levitsky S. Democracy “With Adjectives”: Conceptual Innovation Innovation in Comparation Research // World Politics. 1997. Vol. 49. No. 3. P. 430–451. In which there are a great many of these adjectives: delegate, non -liberal, defective, etc. Scientists were inclined to think that all countries with such regimes - or at least suppressing their majority - follow the path of democratic construction, but are at the beginning of this path, experience growth difficulties and simply did not grieve to the level of liberal democracy. Over time, these difficulties will be gradually eliminated, and the process of transition to democracy will come to its natural conclusion.

The fact that democracies differ in the quality of civil rights and freedoms is completely obvious. It seems rather plausible that the idea that democracy is gradually being improved and some of them simply have not yet reached a high level of maturity. From the great set of “democracies with definitions” that were invented in the 90s to describe the early stage of the democratization process, to this day only one thing is widely used-“electoral democracy”.

This concept applies to all regimes that provide a real possibility of changing power through elections (hence the name). But if at the same time they do not fulfill certain secondary requirements related to real guarantees of political rights and freedoms, then electoral democracy is evident, but it is premature to talk about liberal democracy.

Of course, such regimes may collapse and return to authoritarianism, but they can also follow the path of democratic development. In the 90s of the last century, this second trajectory was considered much more likely than the first. However, already at the beginning of the zero years, such an optimistic assessment began to cause more and more doubts. It turned out that many of these modes developed in a completely different direction. They either stabilized in their quality, which did not even reach the basic requirements for democracy, or clearly retreated to authoritarian practice, slightly disguised as democratic institutions. Simply put, they were not democracies at all. Therefore, there was a need for more adequate terminology.

The concept of electoral authoritarianism for the first time received a detailed justification in the article of the Mexican (at that time; later he worked in other countries) andreas Spehler “manipulation menu” Schedler A. Menu of manipulation // Journal of Democracy. 2002. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 37–50. published in 2002. The main idea of ​​the article is that the fact of holding elections in formally multi -party or, in a broader sense, a competitive basis does not yet create democracy. It can only be talked about when the elections can lead to a change of power. The regime that holds the elections, but does not correspond to this key condition, remains authoritarian.

The main attention in the article by Shedler is given to numerous mechanisms, with the help of which authoritarian rulers always win the elections. The list of these mechanisms was already great among SHEDler, and it has grown significantly in a very extensive modern literature, in the general array of which the fundamental studies of two American political scientists - Liza Bladees (about Egypt before the 2011 revolution) Blaydes L. ElectIve Politics in Mubarak are distinguished Egypt. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010. And Beatrice Magaloni (about Mexico in the last years of the IRP reign) Magaloni B. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and Its Demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006 . In more detail on these mechanisms, we have to dwell in the next section of the chapter.

Disputes about words

Gradually, the concept of electoral authoritarianism has gained recognition in the literature, and now it is most widely used to characterize the political regimes that really exist in many countries. Sometimes an alternative term is also used, proposed by Levitsky in collaboration with another American political scientist Lukan Wee in the same 2002, “competitive authoritarianism” Levitsky S., Way La The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism: The Origins and Dynamics of Hybrid Regimes in the Post-Cold War Era // Journal of Democracy. 2002. Vol. 13. No. 2. P.51–65. . This term is difficult to recognize successful. The essence of electoral authoritarianism is not that he admits the competition between politicians, but just that he limits this competition. But this, of course, is the question of words. If you use the term “competitive authoritarianism” as Levitsky and Wei originally used, assuming that we are talking about an authoritarian mode of a special type, there will be no substantial error, but the tires will still remain problematic.

However, not all disputes about words in the social sciences can be brought under the heading of harmless scholastic exercises. For example, the use of the term, which Levitsky and Wei used in the subtitle of his article, turned out to be serious meaningful problems - the “hybrid regime”. From the context of the article, it is completely clear that for the authors themselves it was just a synonym for “competitive authoritarianism”, that is, the term was initially attributed to authoritarian regimes. However, the very concept of hybrids, as it is used in the natural sciences, implies differently: it is the body obtained by crossing genetically different forms and combining their properties. So if you understand the word "hybrid" literally, then the "hybrid regime" is partly authoritarian, and partly democratic.

I must say that it is precisely such a meaning that is sometimes invested in this term. This lubricates the essential characteristics of electoral authoritarianism. By definition, it imitates democracy, but in terms of basic parameters it remains an autocracy. The terminology must reflect this fundamental fact.

Expanded argument in favor of this point of view can be found in one of the articles of Dutch by origin of a political scientist who worked in many countries from South Africa to Hungary, p. 399–423. Matthis Bogaards Bogaars M. How to classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism // Democratization. 2009. Vol. 16. No. 2. P. 399–423. . The researcher proposes to clearly separate the concept of electoral authoritarianism from the concept of electoral democracy that has not reached a high level of maturity (which he suggests calling “defective democracy”). This approach leaves no place for "hybrids" in the classification of political regimes. At the same time, according to the Bogaards, some regimes are so difficult to evaluate as authoritarian or democratic that they can be called “hybrid” just in order to fix our doubts about this.

Indeed, such modes are found. For example, in Argentina in the early 1960s, truly competitive elections were held, which not only could very well lose, but also really lost the ruling presidents and party. But at the same time, the most popular politician of the country, Juan Peron Tooltip Content was removed from participating in the elections along with his party, which, by all signs, could well claim victory. Is it democracy or not? It's hard to say. For such cases, the Bogards proposes to reserve the concept of “hybrid regime”. The term "electoral authoritarianism" is more descriptive, since it refers to the essence of the phenomenon. But this creature itself needs conceptual clarification.

Electoral authoritarianism as a political regime

To determine the substantive characteristics of electoral authoritarianism, you should answer two questions.

Firstly, you need to understand how it differs from other types of autocracy, which means whether it really is a separate type of authoritarian rule.

Secondly, how does it differ from liberal democracy, since does it have significant external similarities with it?

It is necessary to clarify these differences in order to identify the nature of the most electoral authoritarianism.

Autocracy and elections

The answer to the first question is not very difficult, but not as obvious as it may seem. Considering in the previous chapter various authoritarian regimes that prevailed in the last century, I did not attach much importance to the elections. However, among these regimes there is not a single one that the elections would be completely alien. In case of scientifically, in each of these modes there was an electoral component.

Some of the absolute monarchies - for example, Saudi Arabia - do not practice elections. However, most of them are elected parliaments. They do not use real power and are essentially advisory advice at the monarchs, but still citizens of these states are familiar with the elections firsthand. However, there are such monarchies that, preserving the basic characteristics of this form of authoritarianism, attach much more importance to their parliaments. This is, for example, Morocco, where a large number of parties are involved in the elections, the competition between them is quite acute, and the results of the will of citizens are taken into account in the formation of the government, although the last word actually remains with the king.

History gives many examples of this kind. In tsarist Russia, the State Duma, first convened in 1905, was not even formally parliament, but by the law -prophetic body, recalling in this regard some elected assemblies of modern Persian Gulf countries. The Duma was quite noticeable - in any case, noisy - a collection, but did not have a particular influence on the government’s policy. However, in Germany and in Austria-Hungary before the revolutions that put an end to these empires, the political influence of parliaments was quite noticeable. Moreover, it was in the conditions of monarchical authoritarianism both in Germany and in Austria that parties were formed, whose successors are still dominated by the politics of these countries.

The fact that party regimes also did not alienate elections, every person who found Soviet power in a conscious age remembers from his own experience. In the USSR, and in Nazi Germany, and in African countries, elections were held regularly with populist mobilization regimes. They served as an important mechanism for involving the masses in politics. True, in modern China there is no nationwide parliament that would be elected directly, but at lower levels of the state vertical - from the provinces to the villages - elected meetings of folk representatives operate. It would seem that military regimes elections are completely useless, and in most cases it is true. But there are important exceptions. In those countries where military regimes reached a relatively high level of institutionalization, elections were held.

A good example of a military regime with an electoral component is the authoritarian Brazil, where parliamentary elections were held from 1970 to 1985, in which the opposition was allowed to participate. Moreover, the president of the country formally elected parliament. True, the opposition’s participation in the elections for a long time was limited by the only legal party from which all the tangible threat to the policy regime were carefully cleaned, and the actual role of the parliament was reduced to the presidential candidacy agreed by the military elite and approve the bills introduced by the government. The parliament of Indonesia from the times of the dictatorship of Suharto played about the same modest role.

The electoral authoritarianism differs from other autocracies not in the fact that the elections are held - they are carried out almost everywhere, but by the fact that the popular election in words is recognized as the only legal source of power. The monarch rules by right of heritage. The single -party regime is enshrined in constitutional or other legal norms in such a way that only one party can claim power. It does not depend on the elections. It is clear that the military junta is in power and retains it by no means by the will of voters. The electoral component of these regimes is negligible from the point of view of the main mechanisms of acquisition and transfer of power. For electoral authoritarianism, this component is more important.

If you look at this situation on the other side, then we can say that the monarchies, party and military regimes allow elections, but they can do without them, and for electoral authoritarianism they act as a necessary condition. But then, of course, the question arises of what is its difference from democracy. The answer is simple: as in other autocracies, elections in the conditions of electoral authoritarianism do not solve the issue of power. Only the current president can defeat the elections if he participates in them, or the ruling party.

The main mechanisms with which autocrats guarantee their election victory was already determined by Andreas SHADLER. The latest studies have significantly expanded the list of such tricks. Among these mechanisms:

-elimination of all competitive opponents from the political arena through repression or “legal” restrictions;

- external control over the opposition, as a result of which it puts forward only the weak, who do not seriously claim to the power of candidates; monopoly on public media, which does not allow the opposition to bring their ideas to the attention of voters;
- administrative or economic coercion of voters to vote for candidates representing power and parties supporting it;

- manipulations by the electoral system;

- Direct fake of election results.