The second session of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Valdai Club, titled "Democracy 2.0: how is popular rule changing?” was devoted to the examination of the democratic form of government in modern realities and attempts to identify the foundations of the so-called crisis of democracy.
As experts noted, democracy is always a matter of compromise and the consensus of society, but at the same time, it is not the best solution of social problems, as there is no perfect society, nor the perfect form of government. However, the best results in the development of societies have been achieved in democracies.
The discussion began with an analysis of the state of democracy in Russia. According to one expert, Russia’s main efforts after the 2011 elections were aimed at restoring public confidence in the electoral system. A key principle of its development today is absolute transparency. Russian election commissions are actively working with all experts and parties, particularly, with the opposition. The Russian government is working on fixing mistakes, and there are noticeable and significant positive changes: direct elections of governors, simplified procedures for the participation of parties in the elections, the lowering of the entry threshold for parties in the State Duma from 7 to 5 percent and a reduction in the number of signatures necessary to stand elections in the restored single-seat electoral districts all created favorable conditions for observers and media. In response to criticism of the government due to the low voter turnout in the September elections to the State Duma it has been suggested that this is due to low interest of the population in the electoral campaign.
The chief complaint against Russian electoral system is traditionally the use of administrative resource. However, if we look at the current presidential race in the United States, it is clear the media is being actively used as a political instrument to bully Donald Trump.
According to another panelist, the current crisis of democracy is not a new phenomenon. In the 1960s to 1980s, for example, there was a serious increase in grassroots activity. The problem of modern democracy not in the form of government, but in the results, which run contrary to the expectations of society.
During the discussion, experts formulated several distinctive features of democracy. If democracy is seen strictly as a procedure or method, there is no crisis and there cannot be one: it does not matter what kind of figure came to power, even if it is a tyrant, and the results of their reign were negative, it is more important that the democratic procedure was not compromised. Moreover, democracy has strict limits to its capabilities, it can be only be used to resolve conflicts of a tangible nature, not spiritual or ideological ones. Finally, the promotion of democracy as the higher value conceals the inability of democracy to resolve real problems.
Another panelist began by carrying out a parallel between socialism and democracy. He drew attention to the fact that the Soviet system was seen as the gold standard of socialism, and other countries had to follow its example. In other words, the Soviet Union "was holding the keys to the interpretation of socialism." Modern democracy exists in identical conditions, as many countries can develop their institutions, but the ultimate authority is the "creator of democracy," the one who "holds the keys to its interpretation," ie, the West.
During the discussion, experts discussed the question of who can be called “the people.” Writers and scientists consider one group of people“the people.” the electoral commission another. The expert suggested that the people "appears" during the election and the process of their legitimization. In the time between elections, certain mechanisms are used to show the people that they have an ability to make a choice. It was stressed that the people are at the basis of the political system, and are not a consequence of recognition from the top. In support of this idea, panelist noted that even during revolutions, governments are formed, and they are in one way or another formed on the basis of the will of the people. The question is not in the formation of governments, but in the people’s recognizing themselves as the people. In the coming years, the expert predictes, there will be a tough struggle for the recognition of the people by the state.
Delving into the topic of the crisis of democracy, another speaker outlined three nuances. First, since the late 1980s, the number of democracies in the world increased significantly, but their degree of consolidation and quality decreased. Second, a lot of quasi-democracies position themselves as full-fledged democracies. Third, there is noticeable rise of populism in recent years, which opposes the ruling elite, and is on the side of ordinary people. In the US, there has always been a populist among the presidential candidates, and Donald Trump is not a unique phenomenon in this context. By itself, populism always occurs in democracies, and there are institutions that allow the public to express distrust of their leaders.
