On the occasion of Viktor Orbán's defeat in Hungary, it is worth to clarify what "non-liberal democracy" is, which the outgoing Hungarian leader introduced into a broader political circulation, while in Poland any "national" environments were eagerly captured.
It is worth starting with the fact that the main promoters of this thought did not implement it in their political practice, nor did they even have specified plans. Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Donald Trump in the USA, nationalists in Poland do not want to build a non-liberal system, but prosecute a non-liberal policy within the liberal system. In another words, "non-liberal democracy" is in their explanation the governments of "national solidarityists", which, however, do not go beyond liberal constitutional standards. An excellent illustration of this is Donald Trump who, despite political "faith", yet accepted the unfavorable consequence of the November 2020 presidential election, and Viktor Orbán who accepted the unfavorable consequence of the parliamentary election.
The essence of non-liberal democracy
Non-liberal democracy differs from liberal deficiency of political alternation and organization pluralism. In non-liberal democracy there is no freedom to make or compete political parties, no freedom to compose electoral lists, no freedom to run electoral agitation by parties, no freedom to spread their ideology. The organization arrangement is fundamentally permanent: there is usually a ‘leading’ organization and a ‘soy’ party. The criticism of power is limited in rule to the political elite organized into a governing organization or fulfilling the governing authorities of the state. Even if there is political competition, specified as Iran or Russia, the parties or parliament are not centres of political decision.
The point of democratisation in non-liberal democracy is to affect the masses in the political process. The measurement of legitimacy of power is so election turnout; advanced turnout means acceptance of the ruling elite and its policies. In turn, the advanced level of abstinence signals the alienation of the ruling elite and even the full political government from the people.
Restitution of the natural function of parliament
Non-liberal democracy is, of course, not without defects – about them in a moment. On the another hand, it has the advantage of creating a circumstantial social temper barometer in the form of an election turnout signaling the temper of the masses. The advantage is besides the professionalisation of parliament, which, without being the centre of political decisions, does not attract ideologists and demagogues, but becomes a purely method body, embedded in the creative and control process in the fields of legislation, taxation and the cast of certain offices. And so, for example, in the model non-liberal democracy of Belarus, the party's presence in the political strategy is residual, while Parliament fills official, legal and economical technocrats of mediate age, without ideological cuts, while experienced in the work of state administration, economical or social organizations.
Crowd in Democracy
The disadvantage of any contemporary democracy is, of course, the abstractity of the categories of electoral masses, which in specified a situation become an anonymous crowd, being inherently chimeric, prone to fanaticism, incapable to rationally reflect. And so, in the current studies concerning Hungary, for example, the communicative returns that Viktor Orbán simply “wearyed” the Madzaros, due to the fact that “for besides long he ruled” – let us note that there is no rational origin here. When, in turn, we thin over the end-of-PRL moods, it is evident that the "Solidarity" environment spread ideological fanaticism, moralally colored social ostracism, almost an atmosphere of lynching towards those who recognized the government at the time – for example, they acted in television, collaborated with the service, played in films, served in the militia, went to elections. Non-liberal democracy does not defend against all these phenomena, due to the fact that it inactive operates on an anonymous electoral mass, having by its nature all the features of the Le-Bonowski crowd.
Overcoming the Mass in Political Platonicism
This weakness can theoretically be overcome by moving distant from the thought of universal voting. Democracy only works in natural communities, that is, members of which connect individual relations, and so there are mechanisms of work towards the group. In order to keep the rule of individual work towards the group, a political ladder should be introduced in which the lower order groups are represented in higher order groups by their representatives. The selection and co-optation criteria must, of course, be based on the participation of a individual in more general fact than his natural community. specified a strategy could be referred to as "political Platonicism". It was developed on Russian grounds by traditionalist philosopher Alexander Dugin. However, we do not request to look at Russian examples, due to the fact that on Polish grounds, he developed it much earlier and practiced the prominent politician Bolesław Piasecki throughout his political path. Even before the war, he called his concept the Political Organization of the Nation and it seems to be the most perfect form of non-liberal democracy and at the same time a strategy based on the truths of Tradition.
Non-liberal democracy so did not fall with Viktor Orbán, who in practice did not even get close to it. This is inactive an attractive alternate to liberal democracy with its disorganization of political power by empowering it in a transmission belt to impose subjective claims on political parties and parliament. The thought of non-liberal democracy was delirious in Catholic thought at the threshold of the 20th century (as Christian democracy) and in various nationalism trends in the first half of the 20th century. Its inspiration is even older institutions of state society and conventional res publica. These in turn, although in a somewhat blurred form, reflect anthropological truths recognized on the grounds of disciplines specified as sociology, evolutionary psychology, or social psychology. It is only essential to complete these concepts with the achievements of Polish political thought, so the political platonism of Bolesław Piasecki both in the first half of the 20th century in the National-Radical Movement and in the second half of the 20th century in the Pax Association – this accomplishment could be called the “Polish School of Political Platonicism”.
The thought of non-liberal democracy seems to be a natural complement to the political reflection of Catholic, national, socialist, as well as identity and traditionalist concepts. 1 should only remember the fundamental fact: we live in conditions of demographic explosion, while the institutions that have educated humanity so far were created in conditions erstwhile people lived in groups of respective to respective twelve people; to specified a social position our minds evolved – humanity lived so 2 million years. So erstwhile we apply institutions invented before the industrial revolution to mass society that flooded (spiritually sank) society over the last 2 100 years, they will not work due to the fact that they fit the context of natural groups alternatively than anonymous masses. Democracy can besides work only under the conditions of natural groups, and never by anonymous masses with individual responsibility. Hence the request to complete democracy with political platonism, abolishing (d)the effect of massivity.
Watch out for the demoliber counterfeits!
Let us not be fooled by political forgeries either: non-liberal democracy would not be the regulation of demolibers specified as the People's-National Union in the 1920s or the National Movement today. Non-liberal democracy does not mean the dominance of the solidarityist social parties in the liberal system. For example, it is not a non-liberal democracy of present-day Japan, although since 1945 it has been almost continuously ruled by 1 organization (Japan is simply a liberal state strategy in non-liberal society and civilization). Similarly, it is not a non-liberal democracy ruled for seventy years by social democrats Sweden.
Non-liberal democracy is the political participation of the people, but without liberal pluralism and political alternation. Non-liberal democracies present include Belarus, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea. Part-time Iran and Russia. They were neither non-liberal democracies nor Hungary Viktor Orbán, nor Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan, nor the US Donald Trump, although all 3 leaders turned against liberal political oligarchy. Being against liberal oligarchy, however, is not to be against liberal democracy, and non-liberal democracy by definition is to be an alternate to the latter, that is, to be returned against it.
Ronald Lasecki
Photo: Fidesz fb profile
