Metamorphoses of Democracy After Cold War

Moderator: Michael Žantovský

Participants: Grigory Yavlinsky, Michael Novak, André Glucksmann, Karel Kovanda, Jeffrey Gedmin

12th October 2009, Žofín Palace

 

There was a general consensus among the panelists that great hopes were put into the spread and prevalence of democratic ideals after the end of the Cold War and that these did not materialize. On the other hand, the end of the Cold War allowed for the opening up of new spaces of political awareness.

 

Ambassador and former Czech politician Michael Žantovský opened the panel by reflecting on the somewhat unrealistic perceptions of the universality of Western liberal democratic ideals and the sense of “triumphalism” that prevailed following the end of the Cold War. The events of September 11^th, however, revealed the existence and threat of competing ideologies with very different goals, values and means to achieve them.

For Russian economist and politician Grigory Yavlinsky, the political situation of the post-Cold War world was misunderstood and so led to many mistakes. It was thought that “paradise” would follow, without taking into account the diversity of the world – its cultures, goals, and visions. Citing the example of the Iraq war, he noted that politics have shifted from the very values, which brought victory in the Cold War: “politics became more about bargaining”.

“Democracy is much more difficult than we thought”, asserted the American theologian and political scientist Michael Novak. The moral and cultural dimensions, which are essential for democracy, have been much neglected. “[Democracy] is not about the freedom to do what you please, but the freedom to do what you ought to do.” The crucial and difficult role of choice in a democracy was equally highlighted by the French philosopher, André Glucksmann. “To experience freedom is to experience both paradise and hell and to be faced with both of these alternatives”.

 

The presence of choices and the freedom to choose is the true mark of a democratic state according to Karel Kovanda, Deputy Director General of the External Relations Directorate General, European Commission. However, “democracy comes with voting, but voting doesn’t necessarily come with democracy” A new phenomenon of democracies has lately been a so-called “ethical consumerism” or “boycotting”, that is the idea that political choices can be voiced through conscious purchases by the voters.

 

President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Jeffrey Gedmin identified a current lack of confidence in the democratic ideals in a “democratic recession”, though not “depression”. The West underestimated the damage done by communism to the mental, spiritual, and moral institutions. “Democracy takes time, not years but decades.”

 

Looking ahead into the future, Michael Novak linked economic development with successful practice of democracy, and predicted that by 2050, the economically successful Chinese will demand more say in politics and a more republican form of government.

 

As for the tasks facing Europe, it should reconsider its current position and future vision in the context of newly rising powers of China or Brazil, according to Grigory Yavlinsky. He interprets the fall of the Berlin Wall as the end of strategy for Europe and the United States and the need to find a new meaning. Jeffrey Gedmin agreed that Europe must have a little more self-confidence and cannot continue to wait for a leader and follow in the shadows.

 

Grigory Yavlinsky also called on everyone to accept Russia for what it is, or rather is not – a democracy, and to engage in dialogue regardless, for Russia as a country representing more than its leadership. Dialogue should also be led with the Muslim world, an aspect much ignored in the past, added Jeffrey Gedmin.

 

In more general terms, our tolerance or passivity towards the removal of freedoms was identified as a great danger by André Glucksmann. Grigory Yavlinsky considered the threat in the spread of nationalism and imperialism.