Some current problems of democracy. Interview with Leonardo Morlino
* Ariel Ruiz Mondragón
During recent decades have experienced processes of democratization in different countries and regions, a phenomenon has generated an important and vast literature devoted to the analysis of democracy: its genesis, development, consolidation, extension, quality and even fall. Undoubtedly, an entire section are privileged within the territory of Political Science.
Among the books most transcendent, rich and full that have been devoted to the study of political phenomena of modern democracy we have Democracies and democratization (Mexico, Cepcom, 2005), Leonardo Morlino, who performed in that text a material relevant combination of empirical and theoretical work to address the issue.
About this book and its developments to the world of today we had a conversation with the author, in which we discussed such topics as the role of media in political transitions, the main critical element of democracy, its relationship with social rights, operation of the mechanisms of direct democracy, the quality of democracy in Latin America, the expansion of democracy and the international environment, and the possibilities of building a democratic world order.
Morlino is currently a professor of political science at the University of Florence and director of the doctoral program in political science at the Istituto Italiano di Scienze Umane and director of the Research Centre on Southern Europe. He was also co-editor of the Rivista Italiana di Scienza Policy. He has published several books, among them regiments Come cambiano i politici and Democracy Between Consolidation and Crisis. Parties, Groups, go Citizens in Southern Europe.
Ariel Ruiz (AR): For starters, there's something I've always been interested in books about transitions to democracy, and that you discussed briefly in his book: What has been the role of media in Generally, political transitions in both passing from authoritarian to democratic regimes as those between democratic undemocratic?
Leonardo Morlino (LM): This is a difficult question on which there is much research. The first reaction, a mere comment would be that the development of media parallels the transition to democracy. But that is a simplification. In that regard would have to see, at least, two relevant observations: one, there are situations in which there are authoritarian different views expressed for the media, not television. One example: in Egypt there was a moment of transition to democracy for many years, after a moment it stopped, and a return to authoritarianism. But in this situation authoritarianism in that country there is still a plurality of media, the reality is that the media are the different powers that dissent is tolerated.
The second consideration when talking about minimum requirements of democracy, one that I take is the presence of alternative media.
There is still a role for this transition type when popular participation, which is not common in all the different transitions, a possibility is quite rare, if this is a development-that always talking about the press. This is a feature that should be in minimum democracy.
Now the other part of the answer is that, at the same time, within established democracies there is a problem, particularly with the television when the public television monopoly "is something that happens in Italy, as you know.
AR: As you just mentioned, one of the hallmarks of a democratic regime is precisely that of having different information sources and alternate. Today has been a high concentration of the media, what is the risk that fact entails for democracy? Italy is an excellent example.
LM: The problem is that Dahl began many years ago, consensus building, training opinions. The views are shaped by several factors: the first is belonging to a community, a group, to a territory. This factor has been the most relevant to the formation of consensus, is constituted by what your friends think, what you think your girlfriend, your people, is the whole social group where you are. Then there is a problem of means, but a problem of personal relationships.
The second factor, if any, is the presence of political institutions, parties, trade unions, who are influential in political organization. But if the parties and unions are very weak or disappear, then the role of the media, particularly television, becomes more important and becomes the second or third most important factor.
This is most useful aspect of political psychology studies about voting behavior or on the formation of political identity. Third
consideration, more general: we have to forget that there is now much more open the possibility that there is no consensus building, ie not going to vote, did not participate.
AR: I want to talk about some threats that are about democracy. You spend a chapter in his book talking about the crisis of democracy and the crisis in democracy. What of the elements that make for a crisis in democracy you think is more prevalent today?
LM: The long-term negative economic results over time. That is, how politics is not ideology, the problem of values \u200b\u200bin politics is a problem that is always more on the substance of the analysis, the political context. The policy is and comes from the arena in which the politician has to solve collective problems, ie politics understood as a solution to these problems. If now this is a definition of politics, collective problem is the most important economic issues like inflation, labor. Then the crisis of politics is when you are not able to solve this problem.
But as you no doubt remember, Argentina has been in economic bankruptcy, but was not in the general discussion of democracy, but democracy has been discussed specifically who was at that time, and particularly their leaders. Then the internal crisis of democracy is a crisis of lack of resolution of problems, but in democracies there is no such alternative.
Let me add another thing: maybe there are problems without solutions.
AR: An element that you point out as very important in the emergence of Western democracies, is the gradual development civil rights, political and others who always have a keen interest in Latin America: the social. How do you combine these rights democracy, how democracy can take root in countries and contexts in which deprive inequality, poverty, misery?
LM: That I think is a very important question. I believe that now, in certain areas of the world such as Latin America but also Africa and Asia, the possibility of democracy and enhance their legitimacy is to develop policies against inequality, poverty. Behind this there is a conception of democracy that is now a notion of democracy that is widely disseminated and accepted, at least in Europe. I'll make an example that is quite clear: both in the Constitutional Treaty of the European Union that ultimately was not adopted, as in the new Lisbon Treaty is to be approved perhaps now is the presentation of a conception of democracy , which is one in which there is not only civil and political rights but also social rights, which are very important.
So in this sense one could say that the European concept of democracy with social rights is a different conception of the American concept, in which social rights are not involved, a declarative level, the same role. But perhaps also in the States there are forms of social assistance, and possibly are forms with a better profile than the actual conditions in Europe.
In every way, today the concept of democracy includes social rights. That is, that today has to be developed further as a democracy in which no solution to problems: poverty, inequality, which is also a question of solidarity. For example, if you remember the second principle of Rawls, who is ultimately and primarily, a philosopher is a liberal-democratic idea of \u200b\u200bthe importance of solidarity at the collective level of human communities.
AR: In the part devoted to the quality of democracy seems to me that you are realistic and pessimistic. You say, for example, that democracies are of low quality common. In that sense, Latin America we are no closer to the pseudo-democracy, these democracies with civil and political rights very limited, narrow or illiberal democracies-that democracy?
LM: Yes, this is a reality. What I want to develop in my future research is the important problem of trying to limit the impact of obstacles to democracy, the development of quality democracy. In this regard, I speak eight different qualities of democracy, among others, are the sovereignty or rule of law-what I call the rule of law - responsibility electoral accountability among institutions, competition, participation, respondents - responsiveness, ie the ability to solve the problems of citizens, "freedom and equal citizenship.
The first one is the sovereignty of the law. When there are democracies that are at least at the lowest level of democracy, I think the first address should attempt to make is the development of the sovereignty of the law, the rule of law. That is, build a more conscious state system of bureaucracy, public services, which is the problem of independence and responsibility judges, ie the problem of fighting corruption, civilian control of police and security apparatuses, and respect for civil and political rights. Must be done soon developing the rule of law. When there is no democracy without quality or low quality, the development of this quality is important.
The other qualities can be seen as consequences and as a result, but the sovereignty of the law goes first, it must be stressed. It is still a significant deficit.
AR: In Latin America we see a fascination with the mechanisms of direct democracy. You mention in the part of his book dedicated to illiberal democracies, there are consultations conducted through plebiscites that have no meaning because they are democratic characterized by effective competition. Broadly speaking, how do mechanisms of direct democracy, beginning with the referendum and the plebiscite, in democratic regimes?
LM: First consideration: Lipjhardt remember, and I think that is totally correct, that the tradition of democracy in the world is a tradition of representative democracy, not direct democracy. Of direct democracy are very few examples: New Zealand, some states within the United States, but not at the federal level, Switzerland is more traditional, and Italy, where there are different examples referendum.
Second consideration: the fascination with direct democracy is always present. In the main normative theories of democracy that exist today-that is, the deliberative, associative, participative, to mention only the most widely-known and there is the idea of \u200b\u200bdoing more specific forms of direct democracy. That is, the problem is how to perform direct democracy.
The answer is very simple: direct democracy can not be done, but there are different forms of participation, different forms of development associations, organizations, deliberative participation in decisions, particular level and there are different initiatives in these directions.
This is the third account: a local level, especially, there is some experience of developing forms of direct democracy. There is some legislation in Italy at the regional level, the participation, in Germany there is some lander, and is also locally in France and Great Britain. In Europe there are, particularly, how to push some initiatives forms of participation as an expression of direct democracy at local level.
AR: Let me close with two questions. I was born a Dahrendorf approaches: "The international environment has been conducive to the spread of democracy? States are trying to promote democracy in other countries, as we illustrate with the United States and the European Union. So what are possibilities and limitations today in the international environment for the spread of democracy?
LM: The seventies are very important in the beginning of the creation of a more general climate conducive to democracy. I think it is a reflection on the experience of American foreign policy during the fifties, sixties and seventies, and, of course, at the end of the Cold War, which is in Samuel Huntington's article "Will More Countries Be Democratic" , published in 1984 in Foreign Affairs. That is, in the early eighties, at the formulation of U.S. foreign policy is a condition that is the result of negative politics towards Latin America in previous decades. The idea was: I will support military and authoritarian regimes because they give me stability. That was not the truth, but otherwise, the truth was the support from Cuba to guerrilla forms in different countries.
At the same time, there was a transformation in Europe: Greece, Portugal, Spain, Western Europe is democratic. There is also a reflection that is important at the policy level: for Europe's stability, of course, is important as well as security and the possibility of specific policies, ie to have a slightly more developed state may be stability, security, bureaucracy, but we also have the need for democracies around us.
In that sense, what we call the policy of the European Union neighbors has been a policy push democracy. But try to do to ensure security and the possibility of policy at the neighbors. This is the great project of enlargement in 2004, then the policy of extending the area of \u200b\u200bdemocracy.
At this point we must take into account other considerations: the globalization with negative and positive effects for democracy. There are imitation effect, you remember when Deng Xiaoping began a discourse of political change in China in 1978 after a U.S. trip and after speaking with different political leaders abroad. China also said that there is a policy that takes into account what happens in other parts of the world, which takes into account the transformation.
Now, in a situation where there was the triumph of democracy and no interest or, ultimately, the perception of U.S. interests and the European Union have democracies around is also a fact: two types of scheme authoritarian China and Russia are trying to do a good compromise between political development, pluralism and in fact control the political and civil rights. These are two new authoritarian ways: it is a hot topic, important, very seriously.
Another problem is the limit to the expansion of democracy: there are different countries in the world in which democracy can not exist because no state, that is, because there is no possibility of ensuring human and civil rights. The reality is that in what I call hybrid regimes, most are those who qualify for without law.
Thus, in the end, to conclude: there is a spread of democracy, but there three factors as an obstacle to it: first, the two important effects authoritarian models to imitate or just presence. The existence of these two alternative models, China and Russia, he sees the possibility of extension in countries that surround them.
Second obstacle: as I was saying, the fact that no state even a locally-developed in some African countries. That is very important.
The third obstacle is that the strength of America and particularly Europe, is a force that becomes weaker in both countries that are more distant from Europe and the United States. Then the interests of economic exchange, stability, is less strong.
AR: You mentioned that to solve these global problems facing the world might be nice to have a broader political organization, which of course would have democratic features, and mentions the EU. What are the chances of building this international order for democratic countries today with traditional resistance, as might be Iran?, What are the chances let alone build a kind of global governance, such as Danilo Zolo, Cosmopolis, but some type of democratic system that can confront the socioeconomic challenges of the world?
LM: There is today, and had not a few years ago, a very strong obstacle: we could build a global democratic order in two situations: a state of total U.S. hegemony and a situation of equilibrium between different hegemonies. The fact is that globally there are none of the two situations, because American hegemony is not global, but there is no balance, because U.S. hegemony is a quite strong. Then it is an intermediate situation which is a very strong barrier that prevents a building in that direction. There are also important realities, such as China and Russia, have developed policy positions and interests very strong economic. Here would be the problem of Iran and the Middle East, where Israel's conflict with Palestine is very relevant.
worldwide
But this is not the problem, not only is there. You can say, with a little imagination, that when technological progress can, for example, to invent an alternative to oil, it will have no more important area. Then the Iranian people have many more problems now in terms of resources.
The conclusion of the interview is to remind you and all readers, as Tolstoy said, humans are forbidden to know the future.
* Interview published in Metapolítica , no. 62, November-December 2008. Reprinted with permission of the director.
