In the early years after the fall of the Iron Curtain in the former communist countries were pressured by the West for more freedom and democracy. Over the years priority "democracy" moved, moving in parallel or following a request for "stability". The ideal is a society with stable and functional democracy. But by that stage the debate remains: what is the priority, democracy or stability? A fragile democracy or a stability that ignores certain standards of democracy?
Dear Afrim,
It is the art to reach real, not formal democracy in Eastern Europe. However, after recent acute developments in some Eastern European countries, stability becomes more and more welcomed, especially from the Western counterparts. You may notice it, for example, in the case of Ukrainian crisis. Cruel conflicts in some countries may really endanger pluralism and implementation of old and new forms of democratic inclusion in other - more stable countries as well.
Arvydas,
Vilnius, Lithuania
Democracy and stability, is not either or option. Both should go together but should not be externally impose. They should be generated through local felt need.
Stability is typical of a consolidated democracy; is very difficult to enforce stability in a democratic transition; stability is a characteristic of a mature democracy.
A good analysis of this issue can be found in Larry Diamond's "Three Paradoxes of Democracy" (1990), Journal of Democracy, Volume 1, Number 3, Summer 1990
pp. 48-60 | doi 10.1353/jod.1990.0047. Diamond says that modern democracy needs to balance representativeness and governability, which are in contradiction. Democracy implies that power is not concentrated in the hands of the few, and that leaders and policies are subjected to popular representation and accountability. But he also argues that, to be stable, democracy must be able to act, sometimes decisively. "Representativeness requires that parties speak to and for ... conflicting interests; governability requires that parties have sufficient autonomy to rise above them. " The other two paradoxes he highlights are are Conflict vs Consensus and Consent vs
Effectiveness.
Recently we can see certain kind of so called "democracy fatigue" even in the most successful post-communist democracies. The non-democratic ways of government are widely accepted by larger strata of population. Whereas in 1990s the political parties openly refusing democracy were only marginal, currently for example Viktor Orbán openly announcing the failure of liberal democracy achieved a constitutional majority. Such trend is now confirmed in Poland, but there are prospects for the "stability-seeking", soft authoritarian regimes in other countries as well. You may check my chapter in this book (2013), some of threats are already appearing: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271966530_Marusiak_Juraj_et_al_Internal_Cohesion_of_the_Visegrad_Group
Book Marušiak, Juraj et al.: Internal Cohesion of the Visegrad Group
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Indexes