Hungary closes the door of authoritarianism, Armenia opens it

The Hungarian Parliament has approved the constitutional amendment limiting the prime minister’s term of office to a maximum of eight years, two terms.

This decision is particularly noteworthy because it is about the parliamentary system of government. Unlike presidential republics, where term limits have long been a democratic standard, most parliamentary countries do not have such an institution. In Germany, Great Britain, Spain, Italy and other European democracies, the prime minister can serve as long as he enjoys the confidence of the parliamentary majority.

At the base of that approach is the logic that the parliament, the multi-party system, political competition and counterbalance mechanisms are sufficient to prevent over-concentration of power.

However, the decision of Hungary proves that in the 21st century, authoritarianism can be formed not only in the conditions of violation of constitutions or abolition of elections, but also in conditions of formal observance of electoral procedures. When the same political force or leader controls the state system for many years, political competition, institutional counterbalances and the culture of changeable power gradually weaken.

For this very reason, the new Hungarian decision can be considered as a measure of institutional self-defense of democracy, which aims to prevent too long dominance of one person or one political group, even in conditions of electoral legitimacy (however, term limits alone are not enough, more importantly:
independent courts,
free media
real political competition,
the culture of power changeability).

Unfortunately, the political developments in Armenia are moving in the opposite direction.

In recent years, democratic counterbalances have consistently weakened in Armenia. The parliament has practically come under the “heel” of Nikol Pashinyan, the judicial and law enforcement systems have become instruments of political reprisal of the government, an antagonistic environment has been created in the political field.

Power is increasingly identified with the state, and political opponents are presented as a threat.

This is the way in which stable authoritarianism is formed without outright dictatorship. Democratic institutions are preserved in form, but are gradually deprived of content.

The process of centralization of power and strengthening of autocracy continues in Armenia.

Armenia is on a dangerous path to the formation of stable authoritarianism.

Political scientist Suren Surenyants

—