EU
[multilanguage_switcher]
When we first hear the expression “illiberal democracy” we could remain perplexed – is it possible that this kind of idea exist? Doesn’t liberalism lie in the base of democracy? Can democracy exist, in its pure form, if it’s in the same sentence with “violation of human rights” or “restrictions of freedom of speech of thought”?
[spacer height=”20px”]
The response we give today can be even more perplexing than the question. The reality is that in modern societies or in the so called “western world” it’s becoming more and more acceptable that liberalism and democracy don’t go hand in hand. Today we can even witness some of those models. Democracy and liberalism are not inseparable. Yes, they complement one, but the absence of one of the ingredients doesn’t necessarily suggest the deficiency of the other!
A democratic government isn’t always liberal and does not always respect all the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Similarly, not every liberal government is democratic. Forms of authoritarian regimes that aren’t elected by the people but still guarantee the respect of most of theirs citizen rights are not excluded.
[spacer height=”20px”]
We could give examples of the imposing illiberal policy both with countries in Europe and with counties that maintain close relations with the Union. The current situation in Poland represents this tendency.
The country joined the EU in 2004 and today represents the 6th most developed economy in the Union. Apart from being a part of the EU, Poland is also a member of the Visegrad group (Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Hungary). However, today the country is becoming more often a subject of critics from Brussels.
The reason for that are the numerous reforms introduced by the ruling party – Pis. Since coming to power in 2015 the party submitted measures that restrict the freedom of press, media and social economy and imposed changes to the educational and cultural system.
[spacer height=”10px”]
In September the Polish government discussed two controversial bills that provision a complete ban on abortions and punitive measures for women that resort to them.
Public response was so strong; thousands came out in the streets to fight for women rights. The proposal didn’t go unnoticed by the European Parliament and concerns about human rights violations provoked a thorough review of the county’s situation. There are several restrictions for women’s abortion in Poland today and every following limitation would threaten the freedom of choice and women’s rights.
The reforms, which the government imposes, do not affect solely public. Concerns of the European Union for the de-liberalization of Poland lie also in the government’s attempts to intervene in the judicial system. Today the country is in a constitutional crisis after it imposed restrictions designed to limit the power of the Constitutional Tribunal – the ruling party’s greatest enemy.
The main role of the Tribunal is to monitor if the government complies with the Constitution. By trying to limit the power and by threatening its independence, the party of Beata Szydło is ensuring greater freedom in the executive power.
[spacer height=”20px”]
Poland is following the eurosceptic, populist and anti-liberal model who is now imposed throughout the whole continent, but especially in Central Europe. If the Polish state continues to follow the “Visegrad” model that has become an archetype of Orban’s policy, this will undoubtedly mean a step backward for Poland. The European Union itself could face processes on its eastern border, which if not disintegrating, may prove to have a destabilizing effect.
[spacer height=”30px”]
“The new state that we are building in Hungary today is not liberal state. It does not reject the basic values of liberalism as freedom, but that is not its main component. It uses specific national approach.”
[spacer height=”30px”]
Hungary is one of the models of “illiberal democracy” we witness today. The reason for this is not only the extremely conservative politics in the country, but the statement of the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who even defines it as such.
Since the Populist Party Fidesz came to power, the Hungarian State is following an extremely xenophobic and nationalist policy. By mocking the ideals and values of the European Union, Viktor Orban managed to impose his model of an illiberal society in which dominates intolerance, hatred and fear. And yet despite his strict foreign and domestic policy, Fidesz was elected through democratic elections and uses democratic methods to promote its ideology. The referendum in which the country voted in October is one of the examples.
The question was “Do you want the European Union to be able to prescribe the mandatory settlement of non-Hungarian citizens in Hungary even without the consent of Parliament?”. 95% of those who voted had answered “no”. In spite the unanimous opinion, however, the referendum was invalid because of insufficient voter turnout (42% of the required 50%).
[spacer height=”20px”]
Orban’s policy in Hungary threatens the country’s liberal character. By violating the rights of the Romas, by using cruel policy against migrants and by limiting press and media freedom, the ruling party alienates the Hungarian state from the model of “Western democracies” and pushes the country towards isolation. Successfully influencing the rest of the Visegrad’s countries, Orban is trying to turn the illiberal democracy model from an exception for the European Union as it was once was, to an accepted alternative.
[spacer height=”20px”]
An example of a never fully democratic republic that is gradually moving further away from the liberal model is the Turkish state led by President Erdogan. Changes imposed by the ruling Justice and Development Party aim to destroy the Atatürk ideal and to lead Turkey to a more conservative path, detaching it from Europe.
The systematic violation of minority rights, freedom of the press and speech causes concern from both the European Community and the liberal-minded Turkish citizens. Several times in recent years the Turkish state was subject of harsh criticism from the EU concerning violations of fundamental human rights.
[spacer height=”10px”]
To understand the internal political situation in Turkey today, we can’t ignore the attempted coup of 17 July. It was precisely this event that left the greatest impact on public life in the country. Taking advantage of the state of emergency, the government managed to close nearly 170 newspapers, magazines and TV channels following accusations of supporting terrorism.
The latest wave of concerns about freedom of press and speech came from the arrest of 12 journalists and the director of the most popular opposition newspaper “Cumhuriyet”.
Ironically, the name of the newspaper translates from Turkish to “Republic” and until recently it was one of the only independent newspapers, which criticized the government. Under the pretext of protecting the population from the propaganda of “Cumhuriyet” in favor of terrorist organizations like PKK or the preacher Fethullah Gülen, the Turkish government tried once again to undermine the principles of the sacred Republic, set by Kemal Ataturk.
Ankara continues to ignore all sort of criticism from the European institutions and continues to follow a very dangerous course. Soon the parliament will submit a proposal to change the Constitution and transform Turkey into a presidential republic. There is a great probability that it be adopted (it takes 367 votes out of 550), but if it fails to secure the necessary support in Parliament the ruling party will organize a referendum.
[spacer height=”5px”]
This is another example of a reform introduced in a democratic way, but which will jeopardize liberalism in the state. More power in the hands of the current president would means that the repression on human rights, freedom of thought, speech and press will become part of the standard in Turkey. This not only threatens security and the modern nature of the country but also completely excludes Turkey’s ambitions in terms of its accession to the European Union.
These are just some examples of anti-liberal policies that make their way with otherwise democratic means.
[spacer height=”20px”]
The future course of action of the EU will undoubtedly be influenced by the development in the relations with Turkey. The challenges that the European Community will face will be not only in terms of foreign policy but also related to the domestic policy and the unity of Europe.
[spacer height=”5px”]
Modern European societies are facing a crucial choice. On the one hand, should we continue to defend the principles of the Union, even though skepticism and a policy of isolation are imposing in a growing number of countries? And by closing our eyes to the injustices and human rights abuses in the name of good manners – aren’t we neglecting the fundamental values on which Europe is built? Although liberalism and democracy do not always go hand in hand, they do remain the best recipe for building a “modern truly democratic society”.
[spacer height=”10px”]
The democratization of a country is a process linked entirely to the form of government and can even be assisted by a second party. Liberalism, however, is the development and the modernization of society. This is mastering the principles of tolerance, solidarity and unity. Liberalization is a process that takes a longer period of time, sometimes even generations and requires an open-minded and mature society.
This is why we are now faced with the task to support and develop the liberal model in democratic societies. By building a common European model we will manage to preserve the integrity of the EU so Europe can become a model for young democracies.
[spacer height=”30px”]
-
Viktoria Buchkova
[spacer height=”50px”]