The Advanced Social and Political Research Institute (ASPRI) was established in 2004 at the University of Latvia to facilitate high quality research of essential social development issues and to promote cooperation of Latvian social scientists and their participation in international research networks. The project Democracy Audit was the first significant project executed by the ASPRI using the methodology of the DEMOCRATIC HOW International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) and supported by the Commission of Strategic Analysis. In 2005 ASPRI is working on preparation of a new publication “Latvia. Human Development Report 2004/05”, which, in cooperation with regional universities, it has taken over from the UNDP. HOW DEMOCRATIC IS LATVIA? IS AUDIT of DEMOCRACY 2005–2014 LATVIA? · AUDIT AUDIT of DEMOCRACY 2005–2014 DEMOCRACY ISBN 978-9984-45-966-0 9 789984 459660 HOW DEMOCRATIC IS LATVIA? AUDIT of DEMOCRACY 2005–2014 HOW DEMOCRATIC IS LATVIA? : Audit of Democracy 2005–2014. Scientific editor Juris Rozenvalds. Riga: University of Latvia Advanced Social and Political Research Institute. 2014, 304 pg. ISBN 978-9984-45-966-0. The Audit of Democracy 2014 prepared within the scope of National Research Programme “National Identity”. Audit preparation and publication supported by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and the United States Embassy in Latvia. Scientific editor:Juris Rozenvalds Translaters: Ieva Birka, Laura Hatsone, Viesturs Sīlis, Diāna Štrausa Layout: Andra Liepiņa Cover design: Ieva Tiltiņa Texts within the Audit are not protected by copyright. This text may be used in part or in full without prior permission, but must be cited as a source. © University of Latvia, 2015 © University of Latvia Advanced Social and Political Research Institute, 2015 ISBN 978-9984-45-966-0 CONTENTS Introduction (Juris Rozenvalds) . 5 I CITIZENSHIP, LAW AND RIGHTS .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 21 1. Nationhood and Citizenship (Sigita Zankovska-Odiņa, Boriss Kolčanovs) . 23 2. Rule of Law and Access to Justice (Gatis Litvins) . 47 3. Civil and Political Rights (Anhelita Kamenska) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 65 4. Economic and Social Rights (Feliciana Rajevska) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 85 II REPRESENTATIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 103 5. Free and Fair Elections (Jānis Ikstens) . 105 6. The Democratic Role of Political Parties (Jānis Ikstens) . 115 7. Effective and Responsive Government (Iveta Reinholde) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 129 8. The Democratic Effectiveness of Parliament (Visvaldis Valtenbergs) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 145 9. Civilian Control of The Military and Police (Anhelita Kamenska) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 165 10. Integrity in Public Life (Valts Kalniņš) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 181 III CIVIL SOCIETY AND POPULAR PARTICIPATION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 199 11. The Media in a Democratic Society (Ojārs Skudra, Ilze Šulmane, Vita Dreijere) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 201 12. Political Participation (Ivars Ijabs) . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 219 13. Decentralisation (Inga Vilka) . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 233 14. Political Culture and Democracy (Jurijs Ņikišins, Juris Rozenvalds, Brigita Zepa) . 249 IV DEMOCRACY BEYOND THE STATE . 269 15. International Dimensions of Democracy (Žaneta Ozoliņa and Toms Rostoks) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 271 APPENDICES . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 289 Appendix 1. Authors .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 291 Appendix 2. Comparison of the 2005 and 2014 Latvia Audit of Democracy and the 2007 Latvia Monitoring of Democracy findings .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 293 Appendix 3. Information about the survey of Latvian residents for the “Audit of Democracy 2005-2014” .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 301 INTRODUCTION Juris Rozenvalds Democracy at a crossroads ‘Democracy’ has been one of the most frequently used words in the political discourse for the last two centuries. Recognition of the value of democracy has become common in the modern world, and it has become a generally accepted standard in the West. In many countries of the world people wish to live in a democracy regardless of their cultural background. According to the World Values Survey (WVS) conducted between 2010 and 2014, the majority of respondents in Egypt (98.7 %), Germany (94.1 %), Sweden (93.1 %), Kazakhstan (87 %), Belarus and Ukraine (85.3 %), Estonia (79.2 %), China (70.5 %) and Russia (67.3 %) (see WVS) appreciate democracy as a political system (Latvia did not participate in this ‘sixth polling round’). When asked to evaluate the importance of democracy on a scale from 1–10, respondents from Sweden give it an average of 9.29 points, respondents from Egypt – 8.95 whereas the average evaluation given by respondents from Germany is 8.94, Kazakhstan – 8.62, China – 8.43, Estonia – 8.30, and Ukraine – 7.83 points. Respondents from Belarus and Russia give the lowest average points for the importance of democracy – 7.48 and 7.42 respectively. Having said this, one must take into account that, more often than not, the respondents of such surveys tend to understand this highly appreciated democracy rather differently. Ranging from 9.25 points in Sweden to 7.52 points in China, the opportunity to elect political leaders in open elections is considered more or less equally in all of the aforementioned countries as an important element of democracy. Respondents from countries that are considered as mature and stable democracies give a relatively higher importance to the assurance of civic rights whereas respondents coming from countries which have significant room for growth in terms of achieving real democracy are more prone to emphasize the importance of democracy in the area of ensuring equal income. They also express willingness to sacrifice one of the fundamental values of liberal democracy, i.e. the right to dissent from and criticize those in power. For example, obedience to a leader as an important element of democracy is evaluated with 2.42 points in Germany, 3.55 points in Sweden and 4.83 in Estonia whereas the average points given for this statement by respondents in Russia is 6.53, with 6.59 in Kazakhstan and 6.60 in China. Similarly, when asked to what extent the special role of religious leaders in interpreting laws should be considered as important, responses differ greatly from one country to another: Swedish respondents give it 2.06 points, German respondents – 2.19 points, whereas the situation in Egypt is completely different, i.e. the role of religious leaders in democracy is evaluated with 6.19 points (WVS 2014). ‘Democracy’ is not only one of the most central notions in modern politics, it is also one of the most disputed and variously interpreted. One can find a wide variety of answers to the seemingly simple question ‘What is democracy?’ in everyday perceptions and academic literature. The various approaches to understanding democracy differ in at least three important areas. Firstly, it is about opposition between recognition of the existing situation, on the one hand, and emphasis on the ideal – the perception of what democracy should be, based on certain moral or theoretical principles – on the other. In other words, the relation between the normative and empirical components of how one understands democracy. Clearly, no definition of democracy 6 HOW DEMOCRATIC IS LATVIA? can be completely free from either of these components; however, relations may differ greatly. Therefore, those who emphasize that complete democracy has not been precedented in the past, and that it can be found nowhere today, and who claim that all democratic systems are incomplete and only partial embodiments of the idea of democracy might may be right. Similarly, those who stress that sufficiently clear and widely recognized criteria exist for distinguishing democratic political systems from non-democratic ones and for measuring how close (or far) they are from the ideal democracy may be equally right. Secondly, various definitions of democracy can be distinguished by identifying how broad a range of matters can be considered to be subject to democratic procedures or, at least, falling within the scope of democracy. From this perspective, the minimalist understanding of democracy, emphasizing that the fundamentals of democracy are contestation and participation, as per Austrian American economist and political scientist Joseph Schumpeter during WWII, represents one ‘approach’. It guarantees