Managed Democracy & the 2008 Presidential Election
In the absence of a U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, RFE/RL says that the new American charge d’affaires, Rudolf Perina, hopes the presidential election scheduled for early next year will be the best ever vote held in the country to date. Perina bases this hope on progress registered in the 12 May parliamentary election. Although by no means free and fair, they did at least mark some improvement in the conduct of the vote which is obviously as much as the international community expects from countries such as Armenia.
“The most recent parliamentary elections, according to international observers, were significantly better [than the ones held in the past] and we hope that the presidential elections will be better still,” Perina told RFE/RL in an interview.
“I think that the Armenian authorities recognize that it is very important that these elections be seen as credible and successful,” he said. “So we are hoping that these will be the best elections Armenia has ever had.”
In their preliminary report, international monitors mostly representing the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe concluded that the May 12 vote was conducted “largely in accordance with international standards for democratic elections.” Their verdict was a massive boost to the international standing of Armenia’s leadership and Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian in particular.
U.S. reaction to the Armenian authorities’ handling of the polls, although more cautious, was also positive, with the State Department calling it a “step in the right direction.” Perina said Washington is keenly interested in the proper conduct of the presidential election “because we consider Armenia a good friend and a close partner.”
[…]
Perina, who has the diplomatic rank of ambassador, took over the American embassy on July 10 in the continuing absence of a U.S. ambassador to Armenia. U.S. officials say another career diplomat, Richard Hoagland, remains President George W. Bush’s nominee for the vacant post. Hoagland’s confirmation by the U.S. Senate has been blocked by one of the senators in protest against the Bush administration’s refusal to term the 1915 massacres of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey a genocide.
Perina said he expects to remain in Yerevan only for “several months.” He denied a direct link between his appointment as charge d’affaires and the fact that he was the U.S. co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group from 2001-2004.
[…]
The diplomat stressed in this regard that a peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict remains a “very, very high priority” for the U.S. He also reaffirmed U.S. criticism of Thursday’s presidential election in Karabakh.
Probably, the need for continuation in ongoing peace talks over Karabakh as well as the willingness of the government here to introduce legislative changes largely bringing the country in line with European standards as well as the absence of a viable alternative, means that this slow form of “managed democracy” in Armenia is acceptable to the West as well as to Russia. Armenia poses no threat to either, does not engage in terrorism, and is ready and willing to play by the rules set by Washington, Strasbourg, Brussels and Moscow.
Certainly, save for possibly taking RFE/RL off public radio, Yerevan has largely kept Washington happy while also walking the fine line of not antagonizing Armenia’s main ally, Russia. Given that the parliament is controlled by pro-government forces, Armenia would also probably descend into chaos and political crisis if the president did not have the trust, confidence and support of National Assembly members. So, in countries such as Armenia, managed democracy might best suit the interests of the US and Europe.
For example, want to implement particular legislative changes considered important by the West for Armenia to integrate globally, but which is not popular among most of the population? Simple. Embryonic states which are on the slow path towards democracy, but which are authoritarian enough to push through unpopular legislation or sign international agreements people don’t like, are perfect. It’s the system in play in Russia, for example, and it’s the model Armenia looks destined to follow.
Q. How does this ‘managed democracy’ function?
A. The idea is simple. ‘Managed democracy’ is a system, under which those problems that it is possible to solve democratically are solved by democratic means. And those problems, not susceptible to democratic solutions are solved by other means.
Q. Which other means?
A. Authoritarian.
Q. And who decides, when to apply democratic means, and when authoritarian?
A. The President and his administration decide that.
Besides, leave important decisions in a region such as the South Caucasus up to the people, and all hell could break loose when no democratic political culture exists here. Of course, this is true only if you consider that no viable (western-leaning) alternative in the form of a credible opposition exists in a country, but again, this is currently the situation in Armenia and until that changes, evolution through a hybrid form of democracy and authoritarianism is probably considered the only safe and natural form of political development by the U.S., Europe and Russia.
Of course, managed democracy is not necessarily the correct system to follow, but as long as it is accompanied by some process of gradual democratization which lessens the amount of authoritarian control over time, you can understand that this is how democratic societies probably developed in the West. Perhaps the main concern is how long such a process will take. Likely it will take decades and generations rather than years, but on the other hand, that assumes that managed democracy actually works. Some believe that it does not.
Managed “democracy” is what happens when a ruling elite feels obligated to hold elections but does everything in its power to control their outcome. In the post-Soviet world, managed democracy is the brainchild of a political elite that grudgingly accepts elections as a precondition for legitimacy, yet retains a Soviet understanding of politics as a dark art of manipulation. The practice of managed democracy amounts to a grab-bag of dirty tricks and a playing field that is anything but level — state-controlled media serve up puff pieces to promote favored candidates and smear campaigns to denigrate undesirable ones, election commissions ignore gross violations and punish minor ones, duplicate candidates confuse voters. The list is long and sordid. But its purpose is short and sweet — to reduce the necessary evil of elections to a predictable exercise that allows elites to devote the bulk of their time to more pressing pursuits, mainly the exploitation of public office for private gain.
Though it has its roots in a Soviet idea — that politics is at once material and ethereal, administered with payoffs and adjusted with propaganda — the managed democracy we find in post-Soviet states should not be confused with the system that came before it. Through all its permutations, the Soviet system had a strong totalizing streak that led it to try to control all things in society. Its successors are, in at least one sense, genuinely more democratic, for they focus on the majority. They jealously guard state-run television, with its nationwide reach and demographically average viewers, but are not overly concerned if the numerically insignificant chattering classes air their discontents in newspapers with limited readership. (Managed democracy comes in a variety of forms, however, and some regimes — in Central Asia, for example — “manage” the political process so closely that they reduce the role of “democracy” to window dressing, producing systems more accurately described as “authoritarian” or even “dictatorial,” although they contain elements of managed democracy.)
But while this system offers undeniable advantages to elites more concerned with the perquisites of power than the perils of accountability, it is fatally flawed. The flaw is twofold — first, the lack of accountability reduces the incentive for the elite to communicate with constituents and base governance on the electorate’s real concerns; and second, as issues properly treated in the public political realm are left to fester or are resolved through back-room deals, the inevitable popular dissatisfaction creates an incentive for the elite to intensify its management of the political process. The result is a vicious cycle in which the political process becomes dysfunctional. In other words, managed democracy is not democracy at all.
Anyway, the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace has more on Managed Democracy in Russia and it’s interesting to recognize the similarities with the situation here in Armenia. Uncanny, in fact.
Managed democracy controls society while providing the appearance of democracy. Its main characteristics are as follows:
1. A strong presidency and weak institutions
2. State control of the media
3. Control over elections allows elites to legitimize their decisions
4. Visible short-term effectiveness and long-term inefficiency
The result is an “unstable stability” based on the president’s personality. He is actually a hostage of the system.
Well, anyway, rightly or wrongly, while managed democracy in Armenia is largely in keeping with Western and Russian interests in the region, nobody is going to risk rocking the boat while no alternative to the present system exists. And with the opposition and civil society defined here in Armenia by personal ambition, petty rivalry and a resulting impotence, I can’t see that there will be any alternative on offer in next year’s presidential vote when Kocharian will pass on power to a hand-picked successor.
For the West, such a reality will mean continuation, especially when it comes to the Karabakh Peace Talks and European Integration, and only a genuine pro-western figure with the support of the nation will give them any reason to consider anything different. For now, however, that is something Armenia does not have. Incidentally, managed democracy is the system the United States favors in the Middle East as it is believed to be safer and more likely to result in albeit slow reform when important choices are not left up to a potentially reactionary and still somewhat traditionalist society.
Washington’s undeclared new dogma professes a new Middle East policy that works both toward avoiding complete political meltdown, chaos and violence throughout the Arab world – evidently very harmful considering the United States’ disastrous debacle in Iraq – while trying to maintain first-class rapport with friendly regimes; key phrase: managed democracy.
Managed democracy is as superficial as it is cosmetic, but it can work miracles, or so Washington believes. Not that such democracy is a new phenomenon. It was, in fact, the subject of awesome experiments immediately following the end of World War II, initiated in Europe, extending to Central America and was later utilized in Eastern Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
[…]
While Condoleezza Rice’s Middle East trip appeared benign and casual, in reality it was tantamount to an official declaration of Washington’s prospective Middle East approach. This approach as I see it, is a blend between the US’ traditional policies of designations – friendly allies vs. evil enemies – and carefully premeditated “democratic” reforms that uphold the status quo without tipping the political balance in favor of those critical of Washington’s regional role and foreign policy. And in the Middle East, they are many.
Ironically, some even consider that this is the model America itself is starting to follow although I wouldn’t consider that regression in some areas since 911 is anywhere near the same as the situation in Armenia or Russia. Anyway, that seems to me to be what is now advocated in Armenia on the basis that long term evolution is favorable and considered more genuine and long-lasting than short term revolution.
Comments welcomed.
- Published:
- 07.21.07 / 8pm by Onnik
- Category:
- Armenia, Armenia Presidential Election 2008, Democracy, Europe, Nagorno Karabakh, Russia, United States
14 Comments
Jump to comment form | comments rss [?] | trackback uri [?]