The Quality of Democracy in Post-Communist Europe

DEREK HUTCHESON, Elena A. Korosteleva

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781351376174
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Communism, Post-Communism & Socialism
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The countries of the former Eastern Bloc and Soviet Union have exhibited remarkable diversity in their post-communist regime paths. Whereas some states have become demonstrably more democratic and have moved in the space of fifteen years from the periphery to the centre of European politics, in others the political and economic climates seem hardly to be better, and their societies no more free, than in the final years of the Cold War.Assessing progress towards democracy in the former Eastern Bloc - or the lack of it - requires a qualitative examination of post-communist polities. This collection of articles brings together a number of perspectives, both macro and micro-analytical, on the 'quality' of democracy in post-communist Europe.This volume was previously published as a special issue of the Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics.

‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Democracies: How to Conduct Research into the Quality of Democracy

LEONARDO MORLINO

Defining Democracy

What is a ‘Good’ Democracy?

The analysis of the quality of democracy - that is, an empirical scrutiny of what ‘good’ democracy is about - requires not only that we have a definition of democracy, but also that we establish a clear notion of quality.

The minimal definition of democracy¹ suggests that such a regime has at least universal, adult suffrage; recurring, free, competitive and fair elections; more than one political party; and more than one source of information. In addition, democratic institutions, existing rights and also the decision making process should not be constrained by non-elected elites or external powers.² Among the countries that meet these minimal criteria, further empirical analysis is still necessary to detect the degree to which they have achieved the two main objectives of an ideal democracy: freedom and equality.

Thus, the analysis of a ‘good democracy’ should theoretically set alongside those regimes that are to varying degrees deficient in principal democratic features. Amongst them are hybrid regimes,³ whose failure to ensure free and fair electoral competition and a minimum level of civil rights keeps them below the minimum threshold to be classified as democratic. Likewise, the defective democracies⁴ should also be left out of the analysis. This category includes ‘exclusive’ democracies, which offer only limited guarantees for political rights; ‘dominated’ democracies, in which powerful groups use their influence to condition and limit the autonomy of elected leaders; and ‘illiberal’ democracies, which offer only partial guarantees of civil rights. In reality, the last three models may also be seen as institutional hybrids, and thus fall short of the minimum threshold specified above.

Deficient democracy is a recurrent expression used to depict East European regimes, but it often bears a different meaning. These are regimes that have just overcome the minimal democratic threshold, but still experience problems of consolidation. By displaying minimal requirements for democracy, they differ from hybrid regimes (see above) and can be included in the analysis here.

Delegative democracy, sometimes referred to as populist democracy, also falls well within the scope of this analysis, having overcome the necessary threshold. These regimes are usually based on a majority system, and host relatively ‘clean’ elections; parties, parliament and the press are usually free to express their criticisms, and the courts block unconstitutional policies.⁵ In practice, however, citizens of these democracies, which O’Donnell finds in Latin America, for example, ‘delegate others to make decisions on their behalf, such that they no longer have the opportunity to check and evaluate the performance of their officials once they are elected. Other bodies of government, even those meant for this purpose, neglect or fail to carry out their watchdog functions, and consequently the rule of law is only partially or minimally respected.⁶

The second step in evaluating ‘good’ and ‘bad’ democracies requires a clear definition of ‘quality’. The use of the term in the industrial and marketing sectors suggests three different meanings of quality. First, quality is defined by the established procedural aspects associated with each product - a ‘quality’ product is the result of an exact, controlled process carried out according to precise, recurring methods and timing: here the emphasis is on the procedure. Second, quality consists of the structural characteristics of a product, be it the design, materials or functioning of the good, or other details that it features: here the emphasis is on the contents. Finally, the quality of a product or service is indirectly derived from the satisfaction expressed by the customer, by their requesting again the same product or service, regardless of either how it is produced or what the actual contents are, or how the consumer goes about acquiring the product or service: such an interpretation suggests that the quality is based simply on result.

The three different notions of quality are thus grounded in either procedures, contents or results. Each has different implications for the empirical research. Importantly, even with all the adjustments demanded by the complexity of the ‘object’ under examination - namely, democracy - it is still necessary to keep these conceptualizations of quality in mind as we elaborate definitions and models of democratic quality.

Moving from these premises, a definition of democratic quality will be suggested in the following section. Furthermore, the principal dimensions of democratic quality will be evaluated with a particular emphasis on the betrayal and circumvention of quality goals. In the final section a comparative conclusion will be drawn and a few issues will be pointed out for further discussion.

What is the ‘Quality’ of Democracy?

Starting from the definition above, and from the prevailing notions of quality, a quality or ‘good’ democracy may be considered to be one presenting a stable institutional structure that realizes the liberty and equality of citizens through the legitimate and correct functioning of its institutions and mechanisms. A good democracy is thus first and foremost a broadly legitimated regime that completely satisfies citizens (‘quality’ in terms of ‘result’). When institutions have the full backing of civil society, they can pursue the values of the democratic regime. If, in contrast, the institutions must postpone their objectives and expend energy and resources on consolidating and maintaining their legitimacy, crossing even the minimum threshold for democracy becomes a remarkable feat. Second, a good democracy is one in which the citizens, associations and communities enjoy liberty and equality (‘quality’ in terms of ‘content’). Third, in a good democracy the citizens themselves have the power to check and evaluate whether the government pursues the objectives of liberty and equality according to the rule of law. They monitor the efficiency of the application of the laws in force, the efficacy of the decisions made by government, and the political responsibility and accountability of elected officials in relation to the demands expressed by civil society (‘quality’ in terms of ‘procedure’).

With the above in mind, five possible dimensions can be indicated here, along which good democracies may vary. The first two are procedural dimensions. Although related to the contents, these dimensions mainly concern the rules. The first procedural dimension is the rule of law; the second is accountability.⁷ The third dimension concerns the responsiveness or correspondence of the political decisions to the desires of the citizens and civil society in general. The final two dimensions are substantive in nature: the penultimate one refers to civil rights expanded through the achievement of certain freedoms; and the final one refers the progressive implementation of greater political, social and economic equality. These five dimensions will be further elaborated in three sections below. Before undertaking this, several general considerations will be emphasized.

The analytical framework proposed here differs somewhat from other studies on the quality of democracy, such as those of Altman and Perez-Linan⁸ and of Lijphart.⁹ Both of these develop a quantitative comparative strategy. Here we stress the virtuous combination of qualitative and quantitative measures in the empirical analysis of the phenomenon. The differences also emerge in the definition of a good democracy, the dimensions of variation and related indicators of quality proposed above. Altman and Perez-Linan draw on Dahl’s concept of polyarchy (civil rights, participation and competition) and may fit into the first substantive dimension indicated above as well as into the procedural dimensions. Conversely, Lijphart’s inclusion into the analysis of the quality of democracy of such dimensions as female representation, electoral participation, satisfaction with the democracy, and corruption, coincide closely with the five dimensions mentioned.

The institutions and mechanisms of representative democracies are the main objects of the analysis of the quality of democracy. This is not to ignore direct democracy as the highest expression of democratic quality, but to acknowledge the secular experience of representative democracies and their actual potential for improvement. If the analysis has to be focused on representative democracies, then accountability - a core feature in the experience of representative democracy - becomes a truly central dimension in so far as it grants citizens and civil society in general an effective means of control over political institutions. This feature attenuates the difficulties that exist objectively when there is a shift from direct to representative democracy.

Accountability is implicitly based on two assumptions from the liberal tradition that highlight the interconnected nature of all of the dimensions explained above. The first assumption is that, if citizens are genuinely given the opportunity to evaluate the responsibility of government in terms of the satisfaction of their own needs and requests, they are in fact capable of doing so, possessing above all a relatively accurate perception of their own needs. The second assumption is that citizens, either alone or as part of a group, are the only possible judges of their own needs: no third party can decide those needs. To leave these assumptions unmentioned is mistaken; they should instead be stated and taken into account from the outset. It is also erroneous to consider each of them as a mere ideological choice. It is instead important to acknowledge that Western democracies have followed a liberal-democratic trajectory and that any concrete analysis of the quality of democracy must take this into account, and also the shift in a direction marked by more egalitarian choices. Those assumptions refer only to vertical accountability, however, and will be further examined in the next section.

Freedom and equality, however they are understood, are necessarily linked to accountability and responsiveness. Indeed, a higher implementation of freedom and equality for citizens and civil society lies in the sphere of representative mechanisms. In addition, effective rule of law is also indispensable for a good democracy. The rule of law is intertwined with freedom in the respect for all those laws that directly or indirectly sanction those rights and their concrete realization. As the next section will explain, freedom, equality and even accountability are actually unobtainable if respect for law is ineffective or the government and the administration do not grant decisional efficacy. These are fundamental preconditions necessary for deciding and carrying out policies to achieve a better democratic quality.

The main subjects of such a democracy are the citizen-individuals, the territorial communities, and the various formal and informal associations with common values, traditions or aims. In this sense, the possibility of good democracy exists not only in the case of a defined territory with a specific population controlled by state institutions under a democratic government, but also of broader entities such as the European Union. The main point is that the above-named subjects are at the heart of a democracy in which the most important processes are those that work ‘bottom-up’ rather than ‘top-down’. In this way, the transfer of analytical dimensions from the national level to the supranational level - although not uncomplicated and without difficulty - is possible. The key is to hold constant the same elements characteristic of each dimension.

The necessity of capturing the empirical complexity of the notion of ‘quality’ democracy motivates the employment of the five dimensions elaborated above. This elaboration pinpoints two aspects of each dimension: each might vary from the others in terms of a form and of a degree of development. That being the case, the analysis calls for indicators, certain measures that reveal how and to what degree each dimension is present not only in different countries, but also in various models of good democracy. These empirical data should also enable the eventual tracking of the growth of quality democracies.

Moreover, such a multidimensional analysis is also justified by the possibility of accepting in this way a pluralist notion of quality. That is, the contents, the procedure and the result also correspond to three different conceptions of quality. And each conception has its own ground in terms of values and ideals. In other words, if the notion of democratic quality is to come out of the realm of utopia and become a legitimate topic of empirical research, then multidimensionality is essential to capture it empirically, as is the related acknowledgement that different, equally possible, notions of quality are likewise necessary in order to proceed in that direction. The different policy implications of such pluralism should not be ignored.

The Procedural Dimensions

Rule of Law

The line of reasoning set out above brings us to a closer analysis of the constituent dimensions of democratic quality, the essential conditions for their existence, and the numerous and related problems associated with the empirical study. The procedural dimensions are considered in this section. The first procedural dimension encompasses decisional output and its implementation, and is constituted by the rule of law. The second concerns the relationship between input and output and refers to accountability. A large body of literature already exists that discusses these two dimensions.¹⁰ Here, each dimension will be analysed with reference to four aspects: the empirical definition, the main indicators, the attempts and practice of its subversion, and the central condition or conditions.

The rule of law is not only the enforcement of lega...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Notes on Contributors
• Preface
• 1. ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Democracies: How to Conduct Research into the Quality of Democracy
• 2. The Quality of Democracies in Europe as Measured by Current Indicators of Democratization and Good Governance
• 3. The Misuse of Referendums in Post-Communist Europe
• 4. Dimensions of Disengagement in Post-Communist Russia
• 5. Disengaged or Disenchanted? The Vote ‘Against All’ in Post-Communist Russia
• 6. The Quality of Democracy in Belarus and Ukraine
• 7. The Sources and Dynamics of Competitive Authoritarianism in Ukraine
• 8. Conclusion: Democracy in Post-Communist Europe: Fifteen Years On
• Index