Clash Over the Nature of "Democracy": Governing Populist Party vs. Europe

• In Event: Poster Session: Division 13 Politics of (former) Communist Societies

Abstract

Due to strongly nationalist discourse, assaults on an independent judiciary, political control over media, and the disagreement with the EU refugee policy, the Fidesz in Hungary and the "Law and Justice" in Poland have attracted much political and scholarly attention.
　　　The EU gradually began to express its concern for the developments in these two countries through recommendations and opinions. Theoretically it is possible for the EU to suspend member state’s voting right in the Council as sanction for serious breach of the values referred in Article 2 of the TEU. However, the two parties have only partially complied with the recommendations and conflicts continue.
This presentation is an attempt to illuminate a theoretical aspect of this conflict, focusing on different understandings of democracy of these governing populist parties in East-Central Europe on the one hand, and the EU and the Council of Europe on the other hand.
　　　Critics against the Fidesz and the Law and Justice have been using expressions such as "democracy backsliding," or "illiberal democracy", adding that the EU is required to act as a defender of "liberal democracy" and "rule of law".
But please be cautious about the following point: these parties have taken over governing power by winning majority in free and popular election. They have insisted that their government is "democratic" against these criticisms.
　　Here lies the need to focus our attention on the usage of such key phrases as "liberal democracy", "democracy" and "the rule of law". By analyzing usage of these terms and exploring meanings given to them, we clarify the discursive positions of the EU, the Venice Commission and the populist parties and their interrelationships.
As for the materials to analyze the discourses in the EU, we chose the EU Commission’s proposal for the council decision, speeches in the European Parliament by the Commission’s vise-president Timmermans, and the reports submitted to the LIBE Committee in the EP. As for the Council of Europe, we chose the opinions by the rapporteurs for the Venice Commission. As for populist parties, we use radio speeches by Hungarian premier Orbán, which are translated into English and published in the governmental webpage.
By analyzing these, we clarify the discursive positions of the EU, the Venice Commission and the populist parties and their interrelationships. It is illuminated that the EU has used the "rule of law" as the main argument of criticism to avoid discussions over "democracy". The position of the Venice Commission is somewhat different from the EU. This will also help us to understand why the EU has been so cautious in criticizing the populist parties. The EU is just aware of ambiguity of these key phrases and cannot act so unilaterally. In view of differences in the treatment of the word “democracy” and other key phrases, it should be said that a real dialogue on the issues is difficult.

Author

• Mizuho Nakada-Amiya, Meijigakuin University