 |
Alexander Russetsky
The South Caucasus Institute of Regional Security (Georgia) |
The Legitimacy of Political Systems in the South Caucasus
What is legitimacy?
Experts understand the term legitimacy differently. In one case legitimacy
is the rightfullness, permissibility, and justification of a certain action on
the basis of its conformity with generally accepted standards and values. According
to Weber it is the recognition of rightfullness, significance, lawful social order,
and the type of rule. According to S. M. Lipset it is the recognition of a political
system that best corresponds to the society in question. Henceforward we will
adhere to Lipset's understanding of legitimacy.
Contemporary democratic systems are arranged in such a way that the main political
associations be represented in government as institutions expressing the interests
of specific segments of society. This process is extremely complicated in newly
independent post-Soviet states because the political infrastructure is far from
perfect and the interests of separate essential segments are neglected. In order
to achieve their goals, these groups are often compelled to resort to highly aggressive
forms of political activity, which leads to the spreading of a "culture of
terrorism" and other forms of political violence. As an example, conditions
are being created for the development of guerrilla warfare, sabotage and other
forms of reciprocal political violence owing to the under-representation of the
interests of the people expelled from Abkhazia, and the lack of protection of
the political interests of the Georgian population of Abkhazia in the negotiations
on the conflict settlement.
Legitimacy in heterogeneous societies
According to many parameters, societies in the South Caucasus are heterogeneous
(Lipset's definition). This is especially manifested in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
As to the Armenian society, it is more homogeneous (the ethnic parameter).
The problem of legitimacy in heterogeneous societies is complex precisely because
of the presence of various segments whose interests within political institutions,
as a rule, are represented unevenly (the problem of political inequality). This
aggravates the conflict situation. In poly-ethnic societies the problem of political
inequality becomes apparent when the political elites of ethnic groups are represented
in power structures unevenly. This contributes to the expansion of separatist
or irredentist sentiments, and provokes a reaction often leading to open inter-ethnic
clashes.
Legitimacy in deeply divided societies
Various segments of society are variously compatible, and the relationships
that develop among them are extremely various- from constructive cooperation to
chronic antagonism.
If contradictions among various segments of a heterogeneous society develop
into conflict, or even come to a crisis, then the society becomes deeply divided.
An example of such a deeply divided society is Abkhazian society, in which the
inter-relations among ethno-national groups reached such a level of crisis that
ethnic Georgians (as a part of one of the segments of Abkhazian society) were
compelled to leave the territory of this state entity. In fact, as a result of
conflict, Abkhazian society became deeply divided and its integration became a
task of the utmost complexity.
Georgian society is itself deeply divided. This is particularly apparent in
that many residents of the country do not identify themselves with Georgian society,
do not consider themselves part of it. The problem of identification is the most
important one in the entire post-soviet region. The demarcations in Georgian society
pass along ethnic, ideological and political dividing lines. Unfortunately, experts
most often focus on the ethnic component of the problem, which does not adequately
reflect reality, and because of this, heterogeneous conflicts are perceived as
ethnic. This is typical of civil wars.
Legitimacy and civil wars
Civil clashes and wars. Illegal changes of power. Low degree of political culture.
Incompatibility between former and current leaderships reaching such a state that
the former come to be outside the law and are persecuted by the current. The incompatibility
of various political groups is a result of their insufficient legitimacy on one
hand, and of the presence of outside players on the other. These players, as a
rule, contribute to the ousting of political rivals and create a favorable atmosphere
for the activity of puppet regimes.
This is not only a problem of the present day; it has its historical background.
The countries of the South Caucasus have rarely succeeded in keeping their independence
and acting without the dictates of outside players. In order to keep their populations
from complete annihilation, the countries of the South Caucasus have disintegrated
into zones of influence of various powers. During the last two centuries, they
have succeeded in maintaining their integrity at the cost of being a part of the
Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union. However, the condition of civil war
was present during the course of the entire twentieth century, and has passed
into this one. This is how the situation is described by the well-known contemporary
philosopher Merab Mamardashvili:
"Our society, the way it has taken shape historically, is the result
of a catastrophe called civil war. In Georgia, its pattern had been more short-term
and localized, but new mechanisms were brought in, in particular the mechanism
of its eternal continuation. Thus, the civil war in Georgia has been going on
since 1921. I realize that this assertion contradicts conventional historiography,
according to which the civil war in Russia ended in 1922, and we experienced its
aftermath until 1924. But this is a chronology, and if we understand what kind
of mechanisms are at work here it becomes evident that only the forms of manifestation
have changed. The principle of violence has remained unchanged, and it forms the
basis of our civil life. As I have said, the devil plays with us when we are oblivious,
when we do not take account of our senses, thoughts and attitudes. But reality
itself continues to exist, and if we are not aware of it, it will make us aware
with a blow to the head. Horrible idols of passion, earth and blood cover the
world, concealing secret paths of order, and it is very difficult to tear ourselves
away from those idols and stand on the bright road of thought, order and harmony.
But we must, or we may drop out of history into inert, evil entropy. And if few
people within a nation capable of being free- and among us, obviously, such people
are few- then the face of the nation is erased. That is what we are talking about.
And if we do not understand that- and this is a cause, first of all, of
the intelligentsia (to remind itself and others about this is its duty)- then
we are not worth a thing."
Legitimacy as a relative concept
According to the definition of S.M. Lipset, one may assume that a political
system will correspond to the needs of a given society to varying degrees. First,
the needs of a society change under the influence of internal or external factors.
Second, in a heterogeneous society (for example, poly-ethnic or poly-confessional),
it is necessary to speak of certain aggregate resultant needs. The less uniform
the society, the more intensively various needs may change, and, as a corollary,
the aggregate needs. Thus, when defining the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a given
political system, it is desirable to take this level into consideration, to proceed
exactly from the relativity of this concept. At the same time, it is necessary
to note the fact that the level of legitimacy may change toward the positive or
negative. This is usually linked to the fulfillment of the promises of political
leaders, with a correlation between solved or unsolved problems and the growth
or decline in trust.
Ideal legitimacy
Ideal legitimacy, like relative legitimacy, may change over time. And it is
possible that this very characteristic- the ability to change over time- is the
condition that increases the general stability of the complex system of interrelations
between the needs of a social organism and its system of political management.
The desire to be oriented toward ideal legitimacy is possible only with the existence
of a highly developed political culture based on historical experience and knowledge.
To a certain extent, the formation of the image of ideal legitimacy is a necessary
condition for the development of a society. Attaining one goal, the society forms
a farther and more perfect goal, and begins to aim at it. Unfortunately, in the
countries of the South Caucasus, when such positive shifts occur, they occur under
pressure from the outside.
The pursuit of ideal legitimacy as the idea of " the common good"
The pursuit of ideal legitimacy by all segments of a heterogeneous society
is a condition of their healthy coexistence- their endeavor to solve existing
and emerging problems painlessly and, of course, non-violently. If such an aim
had been prevalent in society, it would have been possible to avoid the crisis
of legitimacy that is quite clearly manifest throughout the entire South Caucasus.
The idea of "the common good" as the image of the future must replace
those antagonistic aims that lead to violent opposition, struggle, and tragic
sacrifice throughout the region. That is why the aim of creating a society based
on the common good is useful not only for the individual states of the South Caucasus,
but for the region as a whole.
Crisis of legitimacy
"A crisis of legitimacy is a situation in which the rightfulness of the existing
social order is called into question and a lack of confidence in the existing
leadership is openly expressed".
There is no doubt about the low degree of legitimacy of the political systems
that exist in the South Caucasus. This problem is particularly acute in Georgia.
Representation in government, the question of succession, stability of government
over time, and many other factors characterize a low degree of legitimacy and
consequent instability. This problem is discussed in detail in the article "From
Ethnocentrism to a National Idea". The following are excerpts:
"The stability of the whole political system consists of two main components-
a) the stability of various sub-systems, and b) the stability of the links between
them. Thus, if we want to establish a stable democracy, we must take steps toward
the development of democratic institutions in all sub-systems, and find a formula
for effective interrelations among them. Mainly, we are talking about the state
entities that exist on the territory of Georgia- Abkhazia, Adjaria and South Ossetia,
as well as about their interconnection with the rest of the country and the center.
...Unfortunately, in the Georgian parliament today, the interests of many groups
are not represented, even thought those interests exist in reality and need protection.
In exact correlation to this, there exist at once several parliamentary structures-
the Tbilisi parliament, the Adjarian parliament, the South Ossetian parliament,
and the Abkhazian separatist and the Abkhazian pro-Georgian parliaments. There
are also two violently dissolved parliaments- one "dead" parliament,
dissolved by the Bolsheviks in 1921, and the other "alive", dissolved
in 1991-1992 by the opponents of Gamsakhurdia, and from time to time expressing
the desire to come back to power.
The political architecture of Georgia must be changed".
Thus, the under-representation of the interests of any given segment of society
in the political structure may lead to the initiation of new alternative political
systems that seek to fill the gaps in a system that does not satisfy them. The
problem of interrelations among those politically competing systems is the clear
expression of an existing crisis of legitimacy.
The need to develop the process of objective legitimization
The concept of legitimization may be divided into subjective and objective.
For example, when the leadership of the Supreme Council of Abkhazia (in exile)
calls its government legitimate, this is a subjective evaluation. It attempts
in this way to justify political action that is questioned by any given part of
the population. The actions of the Supreme Council of Abkhazia are aimed to making
the process of its subjective legitimization be perceived as objective legitimization.
Interestingly, the representatives of this political organization often call themselves
the "legitimate government", which is an expression of a legitimacy
inferiority complex. It is indeed their forceful internal desire to identify themselves
with the ideal objective legitimate leadership of Abkhazia that defines their
self-appraisal. The same is true of their opponents, representatives of the separatist
leadership of Abkhazia, who control the major part of this state entity on the
territory of Georgia. They call themselves the "de-facto government".
However, the factual possession of power is not grounds for them to be perceived
as the objectively legitimate leadership of Abkhazia. A similar situation exists
in many conflict zones in the post-soviet region.
Objective legitimization of government as part of the peace-making process
Orientation toward the process of the objective legitimization of government
is a peace-making process directed at the resolution of existing problems, the
pursuit of peace and coexistence, the reduction of the factor of group egoism,
and orientation toward the principle of "the common good". Unfortunately, in our
contemporary society, another principle dominates- "The worse it is for me, the
worse it is for my neighbors".
Awareness of these problems is a must among those categories of people in our
region who actively participate in the formation of socially significant goals-
scientists, academics, analysts, journalists, diplomats, parliamentarians, public
figures and students. I hope that this article will make some small contribution
and lead to further discussion of this subject.
