Fırat Vural Çamlıca/20170503050
PSIR332.1/Spring RESEARCH PAPER
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COVID-19 AND FORMS OF AUTHORITARIANISM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
21/06/2021
Introduction
I. COVID-19 Process & Europe
1.1- The European Union and Democracy
II. Restriction Relations with Authoritarianism
2.1- Authoritarianism
2.1.1-State of Exception
2.2- Harmony with Neo-Liberalism
2.3- Relation with Religion
2.4- Can Restrictions be Abused for Autocracy?
III. Restrictions
3.1- Politicized Restrictions Examples
3.2- Unpoliticized Restrictions Examples
IV. Different Examples from States
4.1- The Correlation between Right, Populist, Illiberal Governments, and Autocracy
4.2- The Correlation between Left-Liberal Governments and Autocracy
4.3- Protests
Conclusion
Literature Review
A comprehensive comparison of the political systems in Europe between the COVID-19 era and authoritarian tendencies has not yet been found in the literature to date. It would not be wrong to say that research on authoritarian regimes has been extensively studied in political science, especially in the field of political theory. It is possible to say that most of the research conducted during the pandemic period is directly related to the health sector or biological institutions. Analyzing what the COVID-19 pandemic means politically and how states have overcome it politically can be considered a fairly new field of research. Even though these examples have been examined in terms of a few countries, it can be said that there is a gap in the literature in terms of understanding what this current authoritarian situation in Europe means. It can be mentioned that narrow-scoped studies that do not examine the specific situations of countries can be mentioned, or it can be added that there are many studies related to the pandemic on populist, authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe. However, it is hardly possible to say that there are studies that provide a theoretical overview of Europe. Apart from the extreme autocracies in Eastern Europe, the authoritarianism observed in Central European countries stands out as a deficiency such as the lack of relations such as the market and religion. Most of his work on authoritarianism in Europe is not concerned with economic injustices and passive authoritarianism in Central European states. This study will try to contribute to this gap in this field.
I. Introduction
Political scientists need to understand how the pandemic serves authoritarianism. This paper aims to contribute to this literature by exploring the relationship between the Covid-19 pandemic policies and authoritarianism in member states of the European Union (EU). The analysis relies on the data obtained from the political metrics and dimensions developed and evaluated during the pandemic. In this respect, this study does not oppose scientific arguments against COVID-19; it deals with the science of states and the exploitation of the pandemic in line with their authoritarian policies and economic interests. Like the rest of the world, the EU member states faced this unexpected pandemic process and had to deal with social restrictions while implementing efficient health policies.
In the light of this information, this study aims to measure how the EU member states respond politically to the pandemic period. Questions such as will be the main questions that this study seeks to answer: "How did the political actors manage the restrictions during the pandemic process?”, "Did the states violate the rights and freedoms of individuals, if so, how did they violate and in what way?" will be the main questions that this study will seek to answer.
It is an important point to consider how governments use their powers. Although there is academic interest in the authoritarian tendencies of governments, it has been found that the economic and religious dimensions of authoritarianism are less studied. During the pandemic period, the state of emergency conditions draws the legal framework of the states. Different governments with different political ideologies, such as left-welfare governments, central governments, right-wing governments, illiberal democracies, authoritarian states, appear as a serious point of distinction in this study. It has been observed that with the democracy crisis of the EU, the rise of authoritarian tendencies in countries not limited to Eastern Europe has become dangerous for supranational values.
In this context, this study will try to find answers to how the response to COVID-19 in the economy, religion, daily life rules, and restrictions and how the whole process becomes a political concept beyond a health crisis. Studying and categorizing the authoritarian attitudes of states is a guiding piece in explaining the COVID-19 in the EU's democratic adventure. Hence, these authoritarian tendencies have become a source of primary concern for the European citizens.
1.1- COVID-19 Process in Europe
On March 17, 2020, it was officially recognized that the epidemic had spread to Europe, with all European countries reporting cases of COVID-19. After this tough struggle, which started with Italy and Spain, it continued with high death rates. The drastic restrictions that followed and high death rates across Europe became one of the developments that changed the course of the process. As the end of the second quarter of 2021 approaches, it would not be wrong to state that a hugely different point has been encountered since the beginning of the pandemic. As Table 1 shows, the five countries with the highest death rates in the pandemic are from Eastern Europe. This result may suggest that higher measures should be taken for these countries with a high mortality rate.
However, it should be underlined that democracy was suspended in Eastern European countries, and prohibitions not related to the pandemic were introduced by ignoring the course of the pandemic. For example, the example of Hungary, which does not even need the use of masks in the public space until the number of cases reaches 120,000, will be mentioned in the following sections of this study.
Looking at the current data we have, it would not be wrong to say that Europe's fight against COVID-19 continues rapidly. There is no doubt that vaccine studies have a great role in this struggle. However, even after the vaccine has become widespread, authoritarian tendencies and abuse of law will remain an issue worth examining.
Table 1: COVID-19 deaths in the Europe per million population.
(https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/, May 30, 2021)
1.2- European Union and Democracy
Since the establishment of the EU, there is a growing emphasis in the official discourses on democratic values and the promotion of democracy in Europe. The EU has placed the value it attaches to democracy and the rule of law at the core of its legal codes. Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union explicitly states that the EU is founded on a set of common principles of democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights. In this respect, democracy has become one of the key identifiers of the EU (Kelemen, 2020, p.481). Accordingly, the EU has developed an identity as a democracy promoter not only in Europe but also almost in the whole world. The Copenhagen Criteria, defined in 1993 as a guideline for the countries seeking membership, became an important tool for the EU's transformative power (Börzel, Risse, 2009). By defining democracy as one of the political conditions for the political candidates for full membership, the EU defined its identity as an organization with qualified democracies.
However, the democratic system of the EU has been in crisis for some time. Kelemen (2020) argues that the EU finances the authoritarian states of Europe. Similarly, Kapidzic (2020) points to the rise of illiberal politics, authoritarianism, and democratic deficits, emphasizing that corruption and nepotism have increased and transparency in monetary policy has decreased in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic.
The EU's challenges with democracy are not only limited to the autocracy problem in Eastern Europe or any particular place. Habermas (2015) defines the problems, integration complications related to Grimm's ideas, and the democratic integration problem inside the EU. From that perspective, European citizens who live in member states are de facto separated from the EU's policy-making system. Bureaucratic process in the EU, direct relationship with the citizens of the EU affecting the whole union and making “‘policies’ are uncoupled from ‘politics’” (Habermas, 2015). In the first encounter, it seems unrelated to the authoritarianism in the EU but increases in the lack of supranational values and democratic values, creating a more suitable position for the authoritarianism process. If the countries get less integrated with the union and indirectly democratic values, even in center countries could be applied soft authoritarian values more effortlessly.
About European authoritarian concerns, most of the scholarly interest seems to be directed to Eastern European countries with authoritarianism (Guasti, Engler, Vassileva). However, it is also possible to claim that the pandemic has spread this situation to more central countries with passive authoritarianism. It is also necessary to examine the restrictions on democratic rights, marches, and similar actions in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and many other countries in Europe. While these restrictions or democratic deviations in Eastern European countries are considered, the authoritarian tendencies of developed democracies and economies in Central and Northern Europe should also be carefully monitored.
The question of whether the EU member states use authoritarianism in line with the COVID-19 to reproduce or perpetuate their political power during an economic contraction such as a pandemic. A period when the pandemic facilitated and increased authoritarianism in this sense would result in the intensification of the EU's conflict with its democratic values.
II. Restriction Relations with Authoritarianism
To investigate political tendencies in the COVID-19 era in Europe, the research should include multidimensional disciplines like politics, sociology, and religion. First, the brief explanation of authoritarianism could support the meaning of relations with the pandemic. To consider all the measures in the COVID-19 process as an authoritarian tendency would underestimate the extent of the pandemic. Especially in political systems, vertical and horizontal checks and balances are essential (cf. Lindberg 2013; Schedler 1999), but horizontal suspensions were significantly forced and reduced in the political systems in the pandemic era. For that reason, in authoritarian tendencies, decisions are taken non proportionally and abused human rights scales, or the spread of the pandemic will be considered as authoritarian. It can be seen in many different studies that the durability, history, and tradition of democratic institutions have been embedded and strengthened in the state tradition for many years. The understanding of direct authoritarianism decreases that much (Engler, 2021, p.6). Since democratic culture is related to historical geographies, geography can give us an idea about the form of restrictions due to democratic relationality after a while, but the democratization processes of geographies should be discussed in more detail (Engler, 2021, p.8).
2.1- Authoritarianism
Talking about political regimes dates back to ancient times, but Plato's definition of politics has a special place in political science. Each political regime has its characteristics. A monarchy can have a rational, concentrated authority that creates tyranny. On the other hand, an aristocracy may be rational but may also focus primarily on the good of society or the oligarchy. In the last current situation, the Republic can be “Politeia” or the dictatorship of the majority (Oktay, 2018, p.67). Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Rousseau have defined and evaluated political sovereignty and social control in many ways.
In modern and postmodern eras, these theories have changed with the democracies of nation-states. It is possible to classify existing authoritarian regimes as follows: mixed regimes, electoral authoritarianism, hybrid regimes, flawed democracies, illiberal democracies (Sözen, 2016, pp.67-68).
This study aims not to categorize the democracies of European states in detail, but to examine the main trends in the COVID-19 period. Some of the critical points that need to be looked at to understand whether the states are authoritarian or not are fair elections, the functionality of the legislature, and the existence of blockages in other basic organs of democracy that will create a political advantage for the power (Yüksel, 2017, p. 261).
It is a violation of human rights to prevent basic human rights that have been envisioned to be secured for centuries and that are unlikely to be prevented except in times of emergency. Violations of basic citizenship rights such as protests and demonstrations can be evaluated from this perspective. Considering the pandemic as a state of emergency and therefore preventing these demonstrations is one of the measures taken to prevent the spread of the epidemic. However, this issue has often become the subject of debate.
On the other hand, there is a second opinion that opposes these strict measures just now, with the thought that the disease will be prevented by wearing masks and maintaining distance limits. While the rights to demonstration and march were prevented, the ignoring of many measures in factories and workplaces also caused the measures taken to lose their credibility for people. These are all data we need to follow to explain disproportionate restraint and give us clues about authoritarian tendencies. The state of emergency is an appropriate term for the implementation of prohibitions and restrictions, which are widely used in Europe without any country discrimination, and it is an issue that needs to be examined separately in terms of authoritarian tendencies.
2.1.1-State of Exception
"The sovereign is the one who decides the exception" (Schmitt, 2008, p.1). Schmitt directly underlines the critical point in deciding what an exception is. The normal rule depends on the strictly codified or determined law and the constitution, but the exception is in the obedience of the monarch. In the word's background, this expression is a legal term that refers to an unconditional matter for states and how they handle them. However, Schmitt's interpretation of the concept of "exceptional state" was expressed by "an option of suppression in law". In "exceptional" times, states determine the situation, but this gray concept makes it difficult to determine what is exceptional. In short, the concept focuses on the disproportionate executive power of the legislator during the state of exception.
The state of exception theory used by Schmitt and Agamben adapts easily into the current health crisis. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the SARS pandemic was interpreted by Patton (2011) with the state of exception theory and criticized the World Health Organization for dictating the state of exception to states. Agamben's current articles on COVID-19 go beyond authoritarian and normative scientific boundaries. Agamben (2020) interpreted COVID-19, especially the acceptance of these bans by academics under current conditions, as acceptance of the process and surrendering to the imposition of this autocracy. However, this study would argue that the state of exception theory in itself should not force skepticism. In this context, this theory can be helpful in understanding how European states are abusing the COVID-19 process and struggling to steer their authoritarianism without scientific rationality and proportionality.
A significant part of EU member states (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Italy, North Macedonia, Moldova, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain) declared a state of emergency during the COVID-19 process. According to Agamben and Schmitt, some evaluations should be made in the emergency decisions taken during the COVID-19 process. Accordingly, there are uncertain and gray areas in some countries. In such countries, the State of Emergency decision is referred to as an emergency declaration, public health concern, or disaster declaration.
Countries such as Albania, France, Lithuania, Slovakia, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, and Switzerland have managed the process with different legislative procedures. There is no specific title for Germany and the Netherlands. In addition, the EU essentially refused to declare a state of emergency during the SARS pandemic (Cindy, 2011).
To touch on the details of the analogy, the main element underlined by Agamben and Schmitt is that the sovereign (governments, states) has the power to suspend the rule of law. The real issue is that the suspended boundaries are determined by his "vast sea of will". (Agamben, 2017, p.26). On the other hand, the topic of “Homo Sacer” that Agamben deals with can of course be extended to infected people and potential COVID-19 patients. Agamben has discussed these in his recent writings, but that is not the subject of this article.
2.2- Harmony with Neo-Liberalism
The business world perceived COVID-19 as an opportunity rather than a crisis, and regulations regarding employees were made on this basis. According to Gini coefficient metrics and research by IMF (Ferreira, 2021), the wealthiest part of the societies increased their wealth even more and the low-income part of the societies getting poorer more than usual during the COVID-19 period (IMF, Ferreira, 2021). The majority of the EU member states decided to work from home, if possible, but from the workplace or factory in cases where it is not possible. However, employees in situations where this is not possible are subjected to a compulsory situation compared to people working from their homes, despite with caution. On the other hand, some companies such as banks used the opportunity to work from home and limited some earnings and additional incomes due to the partial rights of their employees based on physical conditions. Flexible working hours and shifting away from the routine of a break in the lives of those working from home to a routine and every hour have become a threat to working people's psychological and physical conditions in every sector. In some sectors, the continuity that could not be compensated by working from home continued with the dismissal of workers, and these dismissals caused greater wounds for economically disadvantaged (Table 2) citizens.
Table 2: COVID-19 based Risk of losing job in the Europe Q2 2020.
(https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents, Q2 2020)
Undoubtedly, it is thought that much more in-depth academic studies will be conducted on the insecurity about flexible working hours during the COVID-19 process, but what is meant to be stated in this section is that capitalism has adapted very quickly to pandemic conditions. This part of the study will focus on who is restricting the freedom of the business world during the pandemic and will address issues related to the restriction of human rights while increasing states' powers. COVID-19 and liberalism relation in areas where widening freedom of movement for economic sake of the big companies and authoritarianism is built with rapid unemployment decisions of companies. The opposition to criticizing big companies and liberalism includes the perspective for economic resilience for countries. Even in this condition, a democratic insufficiency can be determined because the choice between economic performance and individual/social freedoms is one of the characteristics of authoritarian movements. Authoritarian regimes of the twentieth century, such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Soviet Union, have always preferred oppression and authoritarian economic bureaucracy over freedom. More detailed documentation for the current situation indicates that the wealthiest 10% worldwide are getting richer and COVID-19 cases are affecting the lower classes of society much more. La Boetie has been criticized for not obeying the prosperity and obedience developed in the 16th century, similar to the autocracy dimension. "It seems that you consider yourself lucky that your property, family, and life have been lent to you" (Boetie, 2016).
Therefore, economic stability opposition can be taken as a critic, but income distribution inequality during COVID-19 got to increase, and it did within harmony between government and largest companies. Furthermore, these conditions may not strictly relate to authoritarianism because of meditation but find the willing path for authoritarianism and indirect ways to the suffering society can be named passive authoritarianism.
2.3- Relation with Religion
It cannot be claimed that the relationship between religion and COVID-19 is as intense as neoliberalism and labor relations in Europe. However, it can be seen that the prioritization between the forms of socialization in relatively secular life and religion is in favor of religion. Some of the definitions here may be consumption areas such as restaurants and cafes, which are meant by other forms of socialization. In some countries, such as Denmark (Church times, 2021), religious activities continued with some restrictions, but these restrictions did not continue for all social activities. Therefore, although measures to limit or completely close churches and religious rituals continue, governments have dealt with religion in an individual and purely secular framework. Especially in countries where authoritarianism is prioritized and prominent, religious densities are more prominent. In addition, while mass actions, demonstrations, and marches may be restricted due to the measures, it is debatable whether religious gatherings are allowed at the same time. Examining these issues simultaneously and comparatively can give an idea about the isolation dimensions. It is difficult for the EU's dynamics to make proposals that will prevent abuse in religion and keep them equal in relation to other social rights.
2.4- Can Restrictions be Abused for Authoritarianism?
Prohibitions and restrictions have manifested themselves in various ways in various European countries. As focused in the chapter on authoritarianism, the scale of abuse here can be interpreted as a violation of certain rights and democratic definitions. The next section will try to find answers to questions such as "which freedoms can be easily abused? Which democratic actions are suspended? Will the measure of abuse of restrictions be for the people?" In this context, political measures are implemented at points where contamination will be less. Emerging with the discourse of reducing the transmission of COVID-19, these discourses can be misused for political purposes.
III. Restrictions
After the pandemic hit the world in a challenging way, the average death rates rose sharply in the world. Many restrictions and bans have been introduced to reduce the number of deaths due to COVID-19, but it is exceedingly difficult to deal with these bans in one item due to their variety. Therefore, it will be useful to consider these prohibitions in parts.
3.1- Politicized Restrictions Examples
When it is examined the European states from the beginning of the COVID-19 process, possible to see those local elections have been postponed in Germany, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, and Austria. The election for overseas advisers and consular delegates in France has been postponed (IFES,2021). Presidential elections in Poland have been postponed. Parliamentary elections in the Czech Republic have been postponed. Almost all the written elections were postponed and took place later, except Switzerland's local elections. In detail, elections were postponed and later occurred systematically except for Poland presidential elections. Poland's example might be much complicated, and we will discuss the topic in the later "Abuse" part rightist government, but even in Poland, elections were held (Guasti, 2021, p.53).
In general, the COVID-19 era was not encountered with significant discussed elections except one. Without few exceptions like Hungary, Poland (Guasti, 2021), the elections are not associated with the problems and with authoritarianism. Except for the elections, it can be mentioned the not direct political choices during the lockdown period. For instance, selecting the sectors that will work face to face or when the churches are opening, but some public restrictions continued. These types of choices are created by the economic and religious structures of states.
On the other hand, social events such as demonstrations could not be held in some countries due to the inability of the masses to come together. At this point, situations such as human rights violations arise. However, states characterize these policies as preventing the spread of COVID-19, thus adding a legitimate dimension to their actions. Here, politicizing the restriction is employment, economic markets, or some religious gatherings may be allowed, while prohibited actions have a political meaning. Table 2 contains examples of constraints.
Table 2: Restrictions on public gatherings in the COVID-19.
(https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cancel-public-events, June 6, 2021)
Especially after the Brexit discussions, laws regarding the ban on demonstrations took place in the UK in this process. “In London, demonstrators opposed to the UK's months-long quarantine resisted against fines and warrants for arrest for violating bans at most group gatherings. The demonstration began after more than 60 parliamentarians signed a letter demanding the government change the law and allow protests to take place.” (France24, 2021). However, all the violations of fundamental human rights, suppressions by illiberal governments are on the opposite of the EU’s democracy understanding. Apart from the pandemic period and passive authoritarianism, there were already relevant agendas regarding the violation of democracy by Eastern European member states such as Hungary, Bulgaria, and Poland in the EU (Fossum, Menendez, 2012, p.68). With these disproportionate examples of the EU member states during the COVID-19 era, the problem of democracy has once again become apparent for the EU.
3.2- Un politicized Restrictions Examples
Depending on how they are used, some of the restrictions shown above can also be considered non-politicized this time. Because rather than what the restriction is, how it is used and how its content is determined while applying the restriction play a major role in politicizing the restriction. However, rather than the fact that the restriction is political, a few basic restrictions such as mandatory masks, stay at home and quarantines, travel restrictions, social distance, testing, and hygiene measures can be mentioned among the examples of non-political restrictions. While distance education has not been abandoned due to some economic factors, the realization of distance education has been a subject to be criticized by some. There have been scientific studies proving that distance education has many negative aspects compared to formal education, but contrary to these discourses, some argue that distance education is beneficial.
IV. Examples from States
While examining the authoritarian shifting in European states during the pandemic period, the ideological tendencies of governments and where they stand in the political compass (Left-Right) is an important point of distinction. Although it is an old-fashioned method to distinguish between welfare regimes and right illiberalism directly, it would be most rational for the discussion to divide the political debate without simply turning the mainline here. The reason for the liberal political dominant states to be written together (4.1) with the welfare regimes is that the activity in authoritarian and right-dominated countries is far from the political center. Therefore, even if liberalism is considered close to the right in general political thinking like Marxist thought, this is not a condition for the current situation. The right and center liberal political dominated countries have little in common at the points where the examples of authoritarianism. Other types of authoritarianism as economic or suppression of private life (religious) can be considered passive. The passive type will not harm the categorization of authoritarianism because they are valid even in welfare, left-dominated (Spain, Portugal, Denmark) countries in the EU. The limited examples of autocracy in countries where welfare states and large segments of society have greater gains may serve as an exemplary model for the EU in human rights and social policy.
4.1- Correlation Between Right, Populist, Illiberal Governments, And Autocracy
With the pandemic, the importance of democratization and mobilization of central state institutions has emerged once again. While non-democratic countries impose COVID-19 restrictions, disproportionate restrictions, coupled with authoritarianism, make it difficult to take effective measures against the pandemic. While stricter measures were taken in countries with low democratic values, the implementation of the measures was 20% less efficient than in democratic countries (Frey, Chen, Presidente, 2020). On the other hand, when one looks at the direct actions in Europe, direct attacks on democratic and parliamentary functioning in countries such as Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in Eastern Europe show that authoritarianism is extreme. In this process, almost all the legal steps of these countries and even Europe have been aimed at weakening the balance and control systems by-laws or states of emergency. However, especially in Poland, proposals to limit abortion and sex education during the COVID-19 era came to parliament, during which time protests began. However, these demonstrations were aimed to be suppressed due to COVID-19. In the elections held during the pandemic period, the opposition was disproportionately suppressed, and the current government came to power through elections once again. Especially in terms of EU values, the abortion ban and authoritarianism in Poland seem quite problematic.
“The democratic decay in Poland is perhaps most visible in an attempt of the ruling party (Law and Justice) to hold presidential elections, initially planned for May 10, 2020, amid the pandemic. After the opposition rejected Law and Justice’s proposal to lengthen the president’s term of office by two years, Law and Justice decided to switch to a postal vote ignoring the constitutional restriction on changing electoral rules less than six months before elections.” (Guasti, 2021, p.56).
Orban already had a strong autocratic system was built in Hungary before the pandemic. One of the most prominent examples of the indefinite state of emergency, which we have discussed in detail in the section on authoritarianism, has emerged in Hungary. Orban has equipped the penalty for breaking the quarantine rules with various legal enforcements and extended their authoritarianism in this term. Simultaneously using the power of the state of emergency, Orban gradually increased the pressure. The opposition's control of the ruling party became more difficult. Besides, with the power it gave in the state of emergency, the ruling party implemented a series of laws, including anti-transgender law and the transfer of power of local governments to the center.
In the Czech Republic, the parliament's control over the ruling party has become more difficult. Moreover, the ruling party has implemented a series of laws, including a law against transgender and devolution of local governments, based on the authority it received under the state of emergency. Opposition in the media and parliament continued to advance and successfully balanced the ruling party. Especially with the investigations carried out by the media, abuses and corruption came to the fore during the pandemic period. However, one of the most important and perhaps the most interesting reactions in this process came from the judiciary. "On April 21, 2020, the court ruled that four urgent measures are illegal, including restrictions on freedom of movement, travel ban, and forced closure of department stores" (Guasti, 2021, p.56). This decision by the judiciary and the government was eventually implemented. This process that developed in the Czech Republic has shown us how important and valid the separation of powers is still as a political principle. On the other hand, it is a significant development for the political check-balance system to suspend authoritarian attitudes.
Kelemen (2021) argues strongly that the EU governance and policy-making system constitutes a tool for the redistribution of authoritarianism in Eastern Europe. Countries in Eastern Europe generally have the lowest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and national income per capita. Some payments are made to these countries based on EU funds. With the monetary support of EU funds, the authoritarian political reproduction system becomes more stable and sustainable. Kelemen’s argument put forward a different critic of the EU system. If the EU will create punishment for those types of violations of rights and authoritarian tendencies, can it be more suitable for the European future, or will it create more euro-skepticism in those countries?
4.2- Correlation Between Welfare States, Liberal Governments and Autocracy
Looking at the studies on political trust, it is clear that even as quarantine restrictions and measures increase, these measures are less likely to be taken in line with authoritarian principles if the welfare state is mentioned (Nielsen, Lindval, 2021, p.4). Understanding can be possible from the case of Nielsen and Lindval that welfare states have been more effective and reliable in keeping the public's trust and applying the necessary restrictions during this process. Further, Sweden is one of the most liberal countries in terms of restrictions. Even the ban on gatherings of more than 50 people was not implemented in the first wave of the virus, but with the increase in the number of cases and the high death rates, it was understood that this policy was not fit (Engler, 2021, p.12).
It may be necessary to add here that the state of complete freedom under pandemic conditions can be dangerous in terms of health capacities, so the state administration must keep the balance between these two criteria. The relatively better per capita income and living conditions facilitated the alleviation of the difficulties of this process. From time to time, religious concessions and more capital-oriented restriction processes took place in similar ways in social democratic governments, but it has been seen challenges for seeing other forms of authoritarianism in welfare states, liberal governments. Therefore, the impressions that can be shown in this part of this study are much less common than the right authoritarian practices. Demonstrations against the lockdown have also become visible in welfare states, liberal governments, but due to the low intensity of authoritarian tendencies, the demonstrations cannot be said to have been significantly tense. The model that needs to be addressed from the EU's point of view may be the welfare state model, as it is ahead of the model that respects human rights and health success.
4.3- Protests
Various actions and demonstrations have been seen in the world and Europe since the beginning of the pandemic. Diversity of feminist movements in anti-abortion actions in Poland, balcony actions, online actions. Social distancing actions are also new to the literature. Especially protests for George Floyd in the United States and the example of Black Lives Matter were the biggest dynamics of the process. In Europe, the most common form of protest is anti-restriction. Almost all the countries of Europe witnessed these protests. The anti-lockdown protest was generally categorizing with the far-right or alternative-right conspiracy groups, but it was also possible to determine anti-establishment, socialist rhetorical demands emphasized in the pandemic protests. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to consider all actions taken as covid-skeptical. As an illustration, Gerbaudo (2020) investigated the protest types during COVID-19 times in detail but with no political compass as the left-right issues. He elaborates on theory with different categorizations for protester types as socially distanced protests, anti-lockdown protests, and pandemic riots. On the other hand, he categorized these types again in their grievances, tactics, and response to the COVID-19 scenario (Gerbaudo, 2020). In this elaboration, anti-lockdown, protestors, and pandemic riots divide in response to the COVID-19 scenario. In this separation, it can be clearly stated that while covid-skeptical, alternative-right examples appear in anti-lockdown protests, the part classified as pandemic riots have emerged with demands such as anti-order, social justice, and anti-authoritarianism. Especially in France, it is seen that the intensity of protests with anti-establishment demands. Movements, which did not see the Macron government's social support in the process as sufficient, organized various demonstrations with demands such as improvements in the unemployment law and social justice. Trade unions, the "Yellow Vest" movement took an active part in these demonstrations, but it cannot be talked much about the existence of covid-skeptical discourses in these actions (Reuters, 2021). The use of brute force in almost all the protests raises questions about the violations of EU-related democratic rights and the ignorance of public rights.
Conclusion
Has It Turned into an Opportunity for a Trend?
These trends, which are more evident in countries such as Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, have led to the abuse of the pandemic and the restrictions that health conditions allow. “Earlier findings on ‘pandemic backsliding’ (Luhrmann & et al. 2020) in countries that already experienced democratic backsliding, the pandemic opened up a window of opportunity for power-seeking leaders to further concentrate power” (Engler, 2021, p.20).
Even Northern and Central European countries, which are proud of their democracies, often and even if they do not have open authoritarian tendencies, still can put forward existing human rights abuses and passive authoritarianism when they make their economic and freedom choices based on specific criteria and capital. Nevertheless, it is necessary to see how easily the executive rule of governors offered by COVID-19 will be abandoned in this process. The direction of the authoritarian applications and tendencies after this period will be the determining point for the future of authoritarianism trends. Determination of the authoritarian systems that took over their governments from the past increased these tendencies during the COVID-19 period they did not refrain from abusing freedoms or social rights like in Slovakia 2020 elections. At the same time, determination in the political science for centralization of states often happens in crisis times like this pandemic. The crisis is a significantly fit time for expanding authoritarian state rule against the unconditional situation. For example, the change in the power and authoritarian balance in the United States between the states and the central government in crises and war periods can be examined. Consequently, the authoritarian tendency in the COVID-19 era is not a surprise as a historical view but a fact. "In times of crisis, the political reflex is informed by historical pathways, some paved with unitary centralism or devolved regional administration, some with adversarial or corporatist politics, with military or technocratic dominance, to name a few" (Bekker, Ivankovic, Bierman, 2020, p.855). Bekker defines that the limited economies that are more dependent on import and export barriers tend to create central powers in crisis conditions.
Related to crisis and authoritarian tendencies, the EU's attitudes against this violation of rights are a question mark in the EU. The democracy crisis became more evident within the EU day by day. The rising of illiberal tendencies in member states creates more discussion for the EU and how it can be fixing the anti-democratic actions among member states. Specially financing the authoritarian attitudes (Kelemen, 2020) of member states indirectly is strongly against the EU values (Article 2). Financing autocratic leaders and these circles became a shape in Hungary with Orban. According to the 2019 European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) report, Hungary is the biggest shareholder country and the biggest beneficiary of the EU funds with unlawful ways (Bea, 2020). Particularly Orban family increased their wealth non-proportionally in their period of government. With the authoritarian movements in countries simultaneously, anti-migration attitudes increase like in Slovakia and suppress the Roman minority. For all violations of rights, active and passive authoritarianism became hurtful for the EU identity and supranational identity. The abuse of the funds and budget policies in the EU for the authoritarian states creates more isolated, dominant, suppressed societies. At the EU level, it is possible to claim that the isolation of those states decreases the supranational values of the EU. The latest years, some punishments came from the European Court of Justice (ECJ). As an illustration, in 2018, based on Article 7, Treaty on the EU started, and Hungary will be faced with sanctions.
On the other hand, there is another court against Hungary's anti-migration NGO law from ECJ. Because of the long period, the doubts still concern the hiding deficits of the union in democratic characteristics. However, member states and the EU executive mind avoid harsh sanctions on Hungary and Poland in order not to disrupt the unity of the union. Taking action of the EU acts against these authoritarian tendencies will determine how important it is to be democratic in the future of the EU. The process of being democratic will become an empty discourse for the EU, or the union will be able to maintain its claim to be one of the examples of democratic practitioners in the world.
Even if active authoritarian states (Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) limit in some way by the EU, the passive authoritarian attitudes developed by center states with the economy against lower strata are still in doubt. It can be said that a larger paradigm shift is needed in this regard for Europe. While economic income inequality is increasing globally, this gap can form the basis of more significant problems in society in the coming years. In summary, if the EU can develop a plan about passive authoritarianism and economic injustices that may arise over this issue, the door to a more sustainable and more supranational Europe can be opened for states and citizens.
Bibliography Adorno, T. W. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. The American Jewish Committee Social Studies Series. Agamben, G., & Türkmen, İ. (2017). Kutsal İnsan. Ayrıntı Publishing. Agamben, G., & Atakay, K. (2006). İstisna hali. Ayrıntı Publishing. Arendt, H., & Serin, İ. (2018). Totalitarizmin Kaynakları 3. İletişim Publishing. Bekker, M. Ivankovic, D. Bierman, O. (2020). Early lessons from COVID-19 response and shifts in authority: public trust, policy legitimacy and political inclusion. European Journal of Public Health, Volume 30. Beyme, K.V. (2019). Populism, Right-Wing Extremism and Neo-Nationalism. New Authoritarianism, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf08xx.4 Boetie, E. (2016). Discourse On Voluntary Servitude: why people enslave themselves to authority. ADAGIO Press. Börzel, T. Risse, T. (2009). The Transformative Power of Europe: The European Union and the Diffusion of Ideas, JOUR. Chalk. (2021). Neoliberalism and personal freedoms during COVID-19. Journal of Global Faultlines, 8(1), 91. https://doi.org/10.13169/jglobfaul.8.1.0091 Cindy, P. (2011). Pandemic, Empire and the Permanent State of Exception, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 46, No. 13 Eriksen, E. O., & Fossum, J. E. (2012). Rethinking democracy and the European Union. Routledge. Engler, S., Brunner, P., Loviat, R., Abou-Chadi, T., Leemann, L., Glaser, A., & Kübler, D. (2021). Democracy in times of the pandemic: explaining the variation of COVID-19 policies across European democracies. West European Politics, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2021.1900669 Frey, C. Benedikt, Chinchih Chen, and Giorgio Presidente (2020). ‘Democracy, Culture, and Contagion: Political Regimes and Countries Responsiveness to COVID-19’, COVID Economics, 18, 1–20. Gerbaudo, P. (2020), THE PANDEMIC CROWD: PROTEST IN THE TIME OF COVID-19, Journal of International Affairs, 73, no. 2. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. Guasti, P. (2020) The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Central and Eastern Europe The Rise of Autocracy and Democratic Resilience, Volume 7, Issue 2, Winter 2020: 47–60. Habermas, J. (2015). Democracy in Europe: Why the Development of the EU into a Transnational Democracy Is Necessary and How It Is Possible. European Law Journal, 21(4), 546–557. doi:10.1111/eulj.12128 Heinrich, H.-G. (2019). From Horthy to Orbán: New Authoritarianism, 100–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf08xx.10 Heinzel, M. (2021). Expert authority and support for COVID-19 measures in Germany and the UK: a survey experiment Jaskiernia, J. (2019). Authoritarian Tendencies in the Polish Political System. New Authoritarianism, 152–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf08xx.12 Kapidžić, D. (2020). The rise of illiberal politics in Southeast Europe. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 20(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2020.1709701 Kelemen, R. D. (2020). The European Union’s Authoritarian Equilibrium, JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY 2020, VOL. 27, NO. 3, 481–499. Lindberg, S. I. (2013). Mapping accountability: core concept and subtypes. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(2), 202–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852313477761 Nielsen, J.H. Lindvall, J. (2021): Trust in government in Sweden and Denmark during the COVID-19 epidemic, West European Politics, DOI:10.1080/01402382.2021.1909964 Oktay, C. (2014). Siyaset Bilimi İncelemeleri. Alfa Publishing. Remmits, F. Sweijs, T. (2020). The Security Implications of the Pandemic: COVID-19 and European Security. Schedler, A. (1999). ‘Conceptualizing Accountability’, in Andreas Schedler, Larry Diamond, and Marc F. Plattner (eds.), The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 13–28. Schmitt, C. (2008). Political theology: four chapters on the concept of sovereignty. University of Chicago Press. Silva, M. D. (2020). COVID-19 and Health-Related Authority Allocation Puzzles Sözen, Y. (2014). Siyasi Rejimler: Demokrasiler ve diğer sistemler, Bilgi University Publishing. Thomson, S., & Ip, E. C. (2020). COVID-19 emergency measures and the impending authoritarian pandemic. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa064 Todosijević, B., & Enyedi, Z. (2008). Authoritarianism without Dominant Ideology: Political Manifestations of Authoritarian Attitudes in Hungary. Political Psychology, 29(5), 767–787. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00663.x Yüksel M. (2017). Siyasetin Toplumsal Aktörleri, Bilgi University Publishing. Bea, B. (2021, February 23). Europe's Sanctions Dilemma: How to Punish Hungary Without Hurting Hungarians. Balkan Insight. https://balkaninsight.com/2020/10/21/europes-sanctions-dilemma-how-to-punish-hungary-without-hurting-hungarians/ Babani, A. (20 March 2021). Anti-lockdown protests erupt across Europe as tempers fray over-tightening restrictions, https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210321-anti-lockdown-protests-erupt-across-europe-as-tempers-fray-over-tightening-restrictions Ferreira, F.H.G. (2021). Inequality and COVID-19 – IMF F&D. International Monetary Fund - Homepage. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2021/06/inequality-and-covid-19-ferreira.htm Luxmoore, J. (2021, March 12). Christians in Europe face uncertain Easter as Covid restrictions continue. The Church Times-News, comment, features, book reviews and more. https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2021/12-march/news/world/christians-in-europe-face-uncertain-easter-as-covid-restrictions-continue Vachnadze, G. (2021, March 20). The Invention of An Epidemic. Medium. https://giorgivachnadze.medium.com/the-invention-of-an-epidemic-fd7a0b46334d. Vidalon, D. (2021, May 1). Arrests in Paris as thousands join May Day protests across France. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/protesters-march-paris-other-french-cities-may-day-2021-05-01/ (2021, May 14). Get the Facts on Inequality and Covid-19. Inequality.org. https://inequality.org/facts/inequality-and-covid-19/#wealth-income-inequality-covid. (2021, June 14). International Foundation for Electoral Systems, Elections Postponed Due to COVID-19 https://www.ifes.org/sites/default/files/elections_postponed_due_to_covid-19.pdf Infection Protection Act - nationwide emergency brake. Website of the Federal Government. (n.d.). https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/nationwide-emergency-brake-1889136