The development of the quality of democracy in Austria

Transcription

1 Austria Basic facts 2007 Population GDP p.c. (US$) Human development rank 14 Age of democracy in years (Polity) 61 Type of democracy Electoral system Party system Parliamentary Proportional: closed party-list system with proportional representation. 4 % threshold for parties to gain representation. Multi-party system The development of the quality of democracy in Austria The overall quality of democracy Austria s quality of democracy is marked by a stable development and constantly lies about 10 scale points above the average of the enquired countries. Starting in 1994 some minor fluctuations are discernible, which will be discussed in more detail below. 1

2 Freedom The line chart of the principle freedom lies constantly below or around the average of the 30 countries in our sample, but shows relatively little variance over time. The minor fluctuations are mainly due to the function individual liberties, since the other two functions remain more or less stable. The function rule of law scores constantly high, whereas public sphere lies on a low level. This is mainly due to the fact that Austria is lacking constitutional provisions for the freedom of speech, assembly, association and the press. Furthermore, Austria has a low level of membership in unions and business organisations as well as in humanitarian and environmental organisations. Finally, Austria's highly concentrated media system with comparatively few different daily newspaper titles contributes to the low score of this function. This is illustrated by the fact that the print media landscape in Austria is dominated by the "Neue Kronen Zeitung" (SGI 2009). The function rule of law on the other hand, reaches a rather high level, because most of the constitutional provisions covered are completely guaranteed in Austria. Furthermore, the effective implementation of these rules functions rather well. As mentioned above, the only function which varies considerably over time is individual liberties. Starting at a comparatively high level, the values remain constant until Following a small increase the individual liberties score declines considerably after The decrease is caused by restrictions concerning the effective freedom of religion due to the "non-recognition" of some protestant churches. Furthermore, increased torture and other improper police behaviour were observed in More specifically, four police officers were convicted for excessive physical force in this year, while 158 cases were still hanging (HRR 1998). The changes between 1998 and 2001 are also due to some variation in the variable torture. Year-wise variations are mainly due to changes in the assessment of the police, marked by episodes of improper behaviour. From 2001 onwards, Austria s individual liberties score stabilizes on a considerably lower level than in

3 Control The line chart for control shows that Austria scores slightly above average on this principle. The most volatile function is governmental capability. Quite constant between 1990 and 1994, the function decreases because of a significant decline in government stability. It increases slightly between 1997 and 1999 because government stability improved during these years as there were no major cabinet changes and the government did not break down before election time. The subsequent decrease in 2000 is caused by a cabinet change: following the 1999 elections the FPÖ and the ÖVP formed a coalition government, which came into office in early This coalition government was highly controversial in the public sphere and provoked various demonstrations - the so called "Donnerstagsdemonstrationen" (Thursday demonstrations). Weekly demonstrations were held throughout the city of Vienna (Republik Österreich 2011) and are also reflected in the temporary downturn in the antigov indicator. The minor decline in 2003 is caused by the national elections of 2002 which resulted in a further cabinet change in 2003 (a coalition was not formed until early 2003). Fluctuations can be seen also on the other two functions. Changes in the function mutual constraints were mainly driven by variations in the balance of power between the executive and the legislative following general elections (1990, 1994, 1999, 2002 and 2006) or the instability of the government (indicator govstab). This is also reflected in the changes in the indicators balpowexle and seatsgov. The function competition, on the other hand, was marked by an increase in the period The change is primarily due to a rise in the competitiveness of elections. More specifically, following the 1994 elections, the seat concentration (indicators herfindex, seatdiff) was relatively high. The reversed trend can be observed after the 2006 elections. The minor decrease of the function competition in 2002 is due to the lower number of parties participating in the national elections in the same year. 3

4 Equality The line chart of the principle equality runs above the average of all countries, and shows some variance over time. Most of the variance is observed with regard to the function representation. The drops of 1994 and 1999 can be explained by the national elections, which resulted in diminished issue congruence and increased disproportionality between vote and seat distributions. The following increase in 2000 is due to the fact that women achieved - for the first time - more than 30 per cent of the seats in parliament. The rise in 2002 is caused by the subsequent national elections which resulted in more issue congruence and less disproportionality between vote and seat distributions. In the second half of 2000s the function remained stable at a relative high level. The function participation shows little variation over time and runs more or less parallel to its principle in the first half of the 1990s. The minor increase in 1994 is related to less restrictive suffrage rights. Concretely, the restrictions with regard to convictions and mental disabilities were changed in Starting in 1996 the function is marked by a slow, but constant, decline. This is primarily due to a constantly less representative turnout of electoral and alternative participation in terms of gender and age. An opposite trend can be observed with respect to the function transparency, which shows some variation over time, but generally a constant increase. The minor variations are related to ups and downs with regard to the level of corruption and the government's willingness to communicate transparently. The general upward trend is caused by diminishing levels of corruption and more open governmental communication. Austrian public authorities are obliged to provide citizens with information about all matters within their realms of responsibility. Access to information can only be limited in cases related to public security, defense, international relations or economic and financial interests of the government (SGI 2009). 4

5 The democracy profile of Austria Legend: (Principles and Functions) Principle: Freedom: RL (Rule of Law), IL (Individual Liberties), PS (Public Sphere). Control: GC (Governmental Capability), MC (Mutual Constraints), CO (Competition). Equality: TR (Transparency), PAR (Participation), REP (Representation). The spiders underline the observations mentioned above. Austria can be described as a stable democracy. Its strengths lie in the functions individual liberties, rule of law, representation, transparency, and governmental capability, where the country scores above the average. The weaknesses lie in the average level of participation and a poor performance in the function public sphere. With respect to the function participation the pattern is mainly explained by a lack of effective use of direct democratic provisions. The strikingly low score of the function public sphere, as already mentioned above, is mainly due to a rather concentrated press system and the lack of several constitutional provisions. 5