Double standards is the name of discriminatory approaches to the rights of certain races, peoples, communities, and individuals taken in practice. This term is used to assess negative phenomena in social science, journalism, economics, and especially in politics. Governments of various states that use such approaches to assess opponents officially categorically reject discriminatory actions against people who do not express loyalty, as well as their competitors in the struggle for the presidency or seat in parliament.
When assessing the almost identical behavior of subjects, various laws, rules and principles are applied depending on how beneficial such an attitude becomes for the person performing the assessment. A double standard is a broad concept that includes selective justice. In such a situation, those close to power, even if high-profile crimes are committed, go unpunished, and disagreeable citizens end up in prison due to minor offenses or false charges. The policy of double standards in the field of international relations often takes the form of accusing all objectionable countries and their governments of violating conventions, principles and obligations, the rights of citizens and violating human values.
Terminology
The term "double standard" appeared in the middle of the XIX century in the UK, and this phrase was used in relation to unequal moral requirements for women and men. In the USSR, the concept of "double standards" has been used since the 50s of the twentieth century to denote the class and racial inequality characteristic of capitalist states.
In politics
Double standards in politics allow influencing the opinion of a certain part of the population. So, the government of the countries sending troops to various hot spots call their soldiers "liberating soldiers", and the enemy - "bandit formation". For example, in the USSR during the introduction of units in Afghanistan, tens of thousands of conscripts and officers were called liberating soldiers. When, after a decade and a half, the US and NATO began to conduct hostilities in the territory of this state, the government of modern Russia accused them of trying to occupy foreign territory because of selfish goals.
Double standards are most noticeable in the assessments of observers monitoring the integrity of parliamentary and presidential elections in the CIS republics and third world countries. So, if the government of these states shares the Western model of democracy, the voting results are recognized as even. And in situations where the leader or winner is far from such an ideology, observers talk about multiple irregularities during the electoral process and recognize the outcome of the election as unfair and undemocratic.
This case is clearly visible when comparing the attitude of Western countries to Georgia and Belarus. So, the victory of the pro-Western Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, the EU representatives called the triumph of democracy, and such a vote in favor of the leader of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko - a consequence of intimidation of citizens and rigging the results. Moreover, it was not taken into account that in both post-Soviet republics there are a significant number of political prisoners in prison who disagree with the actions of the ruling regime, and these include politicians, journalists, and simply active citizens.
A similar situation applies to unrecognized republics. Thus, Western countries recognized the results of the referendum on the secession of Montenegro and its independence from Serbia, but still do not want to come to terms with the existence of such republics as South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the PMR. This is explained by the fact that the EU and the USA support their partners - Moldova and Georgia, and the fact of recognition of the secession territories is detrimental to the interests of these states.