Erosion of Democratic Legitimacy: When the View Does Not Correspond to Reality

Abstract

In most people's consciousness, democracy gives them political power and makes them rulers. That is why democracy (democratic order) is acceptable to the people and recognized by them. This view is the basis of the legitimacy of democracy (the legitimacy of the existing democratic order). The normative ideal of democracy both in the advanced democratic countries ("the West") and in the post-Soviet space that dominated the process of disintegration of the Soviet Union used to nourish this view and was following it. The accompanying liberal ideology, the absolute priority position of individual freedom in the hierarchy of values, further strengthened this basis of legitimation: only in democratic government does each individual have power and exercise it. The result is a decision made by a majority that is acceptable and recognized by all, including those out of the majority. Other factors contributed to the strengthening of the legitimacy of democracy: the establishment of independent states related to the sovereign power of the citizens of this state (demos) and the rejection of authoritarianism formed as a one-party dictatorship raised the value of democracy. Democracy was perceived as the most legitimate form of government. How consistent is this dominant people-conscious view of the actual order that has developed in the new post-Soviet states (Georgia)? In reality, we can see that power is exercised only by a small group of citizens. Contrary to the "popular" democratic view of the academic discourse on democracy, the democratic theory focuses on the analysis of real democracies and the study of the main features of the order in reality and their interrelationships. Real democracy is characterized as a competition as a rule for the selection of rulers (Schumpeter), as polyarchy (Dahl), as a means of the resignation of the electing rulers (Popper), as a counter-democracy (veto power over rulers - Rosanvallon) and others, and not an order, where demos (people) exercise of power. It is a paradox when real democracy and the view of democracy that legitimizes it do not coincide and contradict each other in many directions. This discrepancy significantly weakens legitimacy over time and is influenced by several factors. In exceptional cases, it leads to crisis, eroding the existing democratic order and showing a tendency to transform political institutions and the political system. The trajectory of the transformation tendency can be both pro and anti-democratic. In practice, real democracy is historically based on the course and resolution of emerging conflicts (conflicts of a social dimension involving a critically important part of the demos). From the beginning, it is not a struggle for everyone (for all members of the demos) to have power. The parties to the conflict are fighting for their power (and not for everyone to have power). Ultimately, democracy must be considered the political order, where and when existing, and agreement between the groups involved in the conflict, that the political decisions made(received) by all - by the members of demos. Democracy, as the political power of all demos members, is established in the era of massive parties when a significant portion of the demos is massively united (or actively supported) in the parties. In Europe, this is mainly due to the emergence of massive (so cold platform) left-wing parties - from the second half of the XIX century to the 70s of the XX century. Then begins the crisis of the parties, which is transformed into a crisis of party democracy. In traditional (Western, European) democracies, democratic institutions (national and local) such as elections, parliaments, assemblies, and parties begin forming and functioning, achieving significant consolidation under non-mass democracies. Of course, they experience gradual changes with the increase of the part of the demos involved in the political process (decisions). These changes themselves, in turn, accelerate the universality of democracy. The government must be legitimized by its supporting majority and all, including those out of the majority, to exercise legitimate governance, The importance of the participation factor strengthens legitimacy: if the mechanisms of power-sharing and power distribution (both vertical and horizontal) are robust. The government is also becoming radically polarized and needs help implementing the sharing and distribution mechanisms. It is possible only if the contradictions between political groups (government-oriented masses with ambitions for appropriate responsibility) are not radically polarized. In other words, if the political opposition is focused on changing the government's policy all the time (not even during the elections) and not the government itself. The process itself needs legitimacy. Authorities - Parliament, Government, Opposition, and therefore Elections - should have high legitimacy. Thus, elections express the people's will (citizens). If this legitimacy is relatively weak, it is reflected in the short trust towards the parties. The legitimacy is further weakened by the fact that power is exercised not only during elections but also in the period between elections when there is even higher inequality between different groups.