Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T02:02:44.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The good, the bad, and the ambitious: democracy and autocracy promoters competing in Belarus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2015

Katsiaryna Yakouchyk
Katsiaryna Yakouchyk*
Affiliation:
Jean Monnet Chair for European Politics, University of Passau, Passau, Germany
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How do China, Russia, and the European Union (EU) facilitate or hinder political liberalization in Belarus? In this paper, using the qualitative case study method, I primarily highlight the competition that the EU faces with the Russian active autocracy promotion in Belarus. The EU provides aid only in exchange for promise of democratic and economic reforms, which might be very costly and danger the persistence of ruling elites. Russia, at the same time, offers economic and diplomatic support to Belarus, which is, however, conditioned by privatization of the Belarusian strategic assets in favor of Russian stakeholders. I also claim that China, with growing international ambitions, passively supports autocracy in Belarus, by providing financial aid without interfering with internal political affairs. For Belarus, whose leadership still enjoys legitimation by a large part of the population due to the economic stability, losing major state enterprises might weaken sovereignty. Thus, diversification of economic partners is of crucial importance for Belarus. I argue that Belarusian ruling elites may have found an escape away from democratic and autocratic pushes from the EU and Russia, respectively, by increasing linkages with China. To promote effectively democracy in its neighborhood, the EU ought to reconsider interactions with external non-democratic actors. The paper concludes by providing some policy recommendations for the EU.

Keywords

European Union (EU)RussiaChinademocracy promotionautocracy promotion
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 195 - 224
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ademmer, E. and Börzel, T.A. (2013), ‘Migration, energy and good governance in the EU’s Eastern neighbourhood’, Europe-Asia Studies 65: 581–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambrosio, T. (2008), ‘Catching the ‘Shanghai spirit’: how the Shanghai cooperation organization promotes authoritarian norms in Central Asia’, Europe-Asia Studies 60: 1321–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambrosio, T. (2009), Authoritarian Backlash, Surrey, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Ambrosio, T. (2010), ‘Constructing a framework of authoritarian diffusion: concepts, dynamics, and future research’, International Studies Perspective 11: 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambrosio, T. (2013), ‘Authoritarian Belarus between Russia and Europe’, in R. Vanderhill and M.E.J. Aleprete (eds), International Dimensions of Authoritarian Persistence. Lessons from Post-Soviet States, Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, pp. 193–217.Google Scholar
Ambrosio, T. (2014), ‘Democratic states and authoritarian firewalls: America as a black knight in the uprising in Bahrain’, Contemporary Politics 20: 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babak, I. (2001), ‘Belarus–China: cooperation in international organizations’, Journal of International Law and International Relations 1: 51–55. (in Russian).Google Scholar
Babayev, A. (2014), ‘Democracy promotion between the ‘Political’ and the ‘Developmental’ approach: U.S. and German Policies towards Belarus’, Democratization 21: 937–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, J. (2013), ‘The political economy of external exploitation. A comparative investigation of China’s foreign relations’, Democratization, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.795550, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Bader, J. and Kästner, A. (2010), ‘Mehr Autokratie wagen? Russland und China als Konkurrenten westlicher Demokratieförderer’, Internationale Politik 65: 32–36.Google Scholar
Bader, J., Grävingholt, J. and Kästner, A. (2010), ‘Would autocracies promote autocracy? A political economy perspective on regime-type export in regional neighbourhoods’, Contemporary Politics 16: 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendiek, A. (2008), Wie effektiv ist die Europäische Nachbarschaftspolitik. Sechzehn Länder im Vergleich. SWP-Studie. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Deutsches Institut für Internationale Politik und Sicherheit.Google Scholar
Bicchi, F. (2010), ‘Dilemmas of implementation: EU democracy assistance in the Mediterranean’, Democratization 17: 976–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicchi, F. and Martin, M. (2006), ‘Talking tough or talking together? European security discourses towards the Mediterranean’, Mediterranean Politics 11: 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boonstra, J. (2007), NATO’s role in democratic reform. Working Paper 38. FRIDE.Google Scholar
Börzel, T. and Risse, T. (2004), One size fits all! EU policies for the promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Paper Prepared for the Workshop on Democracy Promotion, October 4–5. Center for Development, Democracy, and the Rule of Law, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Börzel, T. and van Hüllen, V. (2014), ‘One voice, one message, but conflicting goals: cohesiveness and consistency in the European neighbourhood policy’, Journal of European Public Policy 21: 1033–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börzel, T., Pamuk, Y. and Stahn, A. (2013), ‘Democracy or stability? EU and the US engagement in the Southern Caucasus’, in A. Magen, T. Risse and M.A. McFaul (eds), Promoting Democracy and the Rule of Law: American and European Strategies, Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 150–184.Google Scholar
Bosse, G. (2012a), ‘A partnership with dictatorship: explaining the paradigm shift in European Union policy towards Belarus’, Journal of Common Market Studies 50: 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosse, G. (2012b), ‘Quo Vadis Belarus? And where next for EU Policy? Paper Presented at the Deutsch-Nordisch-Baltisches Forum 2012. September 27–28, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Bosse, G. and Korosteleva, E. (2009), ‘Changing Belarus? The limits of EU governance in Eastern Europe and the promise of partnership’, Cooperation and Conflict 44: 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnell, P. (2004), ‘Democracy promotion: the elusive quest for grand strategies’, Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft 3: 110–116.Google Scholar
Burnell, P. (2006), Promoting democracy backwards. Working Paper 28. FRIDE.Google Scholar
Burnell, P. (2010a), Is there a new autocracy promotion? Working Paper 96. FRIDE.Google Scholar
Burnell, P. (2010b), Promoting democracy and promoting autocracy: towards a comparative evaluation’, Journal of Politics and Law 3: 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnell, P. and Schlumberger, O. (2010), ‘Promoting democracy – promoting autocracy? International politics and national political regimes’, Contemporary Politics 16: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, D.R. and Orenstein, M.A. (2012), ‘Post-Soviet authoritarianism: the influence of Russia in its ‘near abroad’’, Post-Soviet Affairs 28: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carothers, T. (1999), Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
Carothers, T. (2004), Critical Mission: Essays on Democracy Promotion, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
Carothers, T. (2007), U.S. Democracy Promotion During and After Bush, Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
Carothers, T. (2009), ‘Democracy assistance: political vs developmental?’, Journal of Democracy 20: 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deyermond, R. (2004), ‘The state of the union: military success, economic and political failure in the Russia–Belarus Union’, Europe-Asia Studies 56: 1191–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragneva, R. and Wolczuk, K. (2012), Russia, the Eurasian Customs Union and the EU: cooperation, stagnation or rivalry? Briefing Paper, Chatham House.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dura, G. (2008), The EU’s limited response to Belarus’ ‘pseudo’ new foreign policy’. Working Paper No. 151. Centre for European Policy Studies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawn, R. (2006), ‘Battle over the box: international election observation missions, political competition and retrenchment in the post-Soviet space’, International Affairs 82: 1133–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freyburg, T., Lavenex, S., Schimmelfennig, F., Skripka, T. and Wetzel, A. (2009), ‘EU promotion of democratic governance in the neighbourhood’, Journal of European Public Policy 16: 916–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gat, A. (2007), ‘The return of authoritarian great powers’, Foreign Affairs 86(4): 59–69.Google Scholar
Geddes, B. (1999), ‘What do we know about democratization after twenty years’, Annual Review of Political Science 2: 115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, B. (2009), ‘What causes democratization?’, in C. Boix and S.C. Stokes (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibler, D.M. and Sewell, J.A. (2006), ‘External threat and democracy: the role of NATO revisited’, Journal of Peace Research 43: 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, A. (2005), Rising to the Challenge: China’s Grand Strategy and International Security, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackenesch, C. (2013), ‘Aid donor meets strategic partner? The European Union’s and China’s relations with Ethiopia’, Journal of Current Chinese Affairs 42: 7–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, N. (2010), ‘The role of external factors in advancing non-liberal democratic forms of political rule: a case study of Russia’s influence on Central Asian regimes’, Contemporary Politics 16: 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jünemann, A. (2003), ‘Security-building in the Mediterranean after September 11’, Mediterranean Politics 8(2–3): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jünemann, A. and Knodt, M. (2008), ‘EU external democracy promotion: approaching governments and civil societies’, in K-K Beate, DB Dirk and M William (eds), Opening EU-Governance to Civil Society: Gains and Challanges, Mannheim, Germany: CONNEX.Google Scholar
Knodt, M. and Jünemann, A. (2007), ‘Introduction: theorizing EU external democracy promotion’, in A. Jünemann and M. Knodt (eds), Externe Demokratieförderung durch die Europäische Union. European External Democracy Promotion, Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos, pp. 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knodt, M., Kotzian, P. and Urdze, S. (2011), ‘Instruments of the EU’s external democracy promotion’, Journal of Common Market Studies 49: 995–1018.Google Scholar
Korniyenko, Y. and Sakatsume, T. (2009), Chinese investment in the transition countries. Working Paper No. 107. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.Google Scholar
Korosteleva, E. (2011), ‘Belarusian foreign policy in a time of crisis’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 27: 566–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korosteleva, E. (2012), ‘Questioning democracy promotion: Belarus’ response to the ‘colour revolutions’’, Democratization 19: 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurlantzik, J. (2007), Charm Offensive: How China’s Soft Power Is Transforming the World, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Langbein, J. (2013), ‘Unpacking the Russian and EU impact on policy change in the Eastern neighbourhood: the case of Ukraine’s telecommunications and food safety’, Europe-Asia Studies 65: 631–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavenex, S. and Schimmelfennig, F. (2011), ‘EU democracy promotion in the neighbourhood: from leverage to governance?’, Democratization 18: 885–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFaul, M. (2004), ‘Democracy promotion as a world value’, The Washington Quarterly 28: 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medeiros, E.S. (2009), China’s International Behavior. Activism, Opportunism, and Diversification, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Medvedev, R. (2010), Alexandr Lukashenko. Kontury Belorusskoj Modeli, Moscow: BBPG.Google Scholar
Melnykovska, I. and Schweickert, R. (2011), ‘NATO as an external driver of institutional change in post-communist countries’, Defence and Peace Economics 22: 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melnykovska, I., Plamper, H. and Schweickert, R. (2012), ‘Do Russia and China promote autocracy in Central Asia?’ Asia Europe Journal 10: 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, M.J. (2003), An Introduction to Game Theory, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pikulik, A. (2012), Why Belarus would not be capable of repeating the South Korean path and fall into a development trap? BISS' Contribution to the Sequence of Democratization/Marketization Reforms Debate. Work in Progress, 7 August 2012. Belarusian Institute for Strategic Studies.Google Scholar
Pinder, J. (1997), ‘The European community and democracy in Central and Eastern Europe’, in G. Pridham, E. Herring and G. Sanfort (eds), Building Democracy? The International Dimension of Democratisation in Eastern Europe, London: Leicester University Press, pp. 112–132.Google Scholar
Popescu, N. (2006), Russia’s soft power ambitions. Policy Brief 115. Centre for European Policy Studies.Google Scholar
Popescu, N. and Wilson, A. (2009), The limits of enlargement-lite: European and Russian Power in the troubled neighbourhood. Policy report. European Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
Schimmelfennig, F. and Scholtz, H. (2008), ‘EU democracy promotion in the European neighbourhood: political conditionality, economic development and transnational exchange’, European Union Politics 9: 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silitski, V. and Jarabik, B. (2009), ‘Belarus: into the buffer zone’, in M. Emerson and R. Youngs (eds), Democracy’s Plight in the European Neighbourhood. Struggling Transitions and Proliferating Dynasties, Brussels: Center for European Policy Studies, pp. 130–138.Google Scholar
Smith, K.E. (1998), ‘The use of political conditionality in the EU’s relations with third countries: how effective?’, European Foreign Affairs Review 3: 253–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolstrup, J. (2009), ‘Studying a negative external actor: Russia’s management of stability and instability in the ‘Near Abroad’’, Democratization 16: 922–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Elsuwege, P. (2010), The European Union and the Belarus dilemma: between conditionality and constructive engagement. Proceedings of the Institute for European Studies, Tallin University of Technology, Tallin, Estonia, pp. 7–20.Google Scholar
van Hüllen, V. and Stahn, A. (2007), Why semi-authoritarian regimes may be more troublesome than autocracies: US and EU strategies of democracy promotion in the Mediterranean and the newly independent states. Paper Prepared for the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30–September 2, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Vanderhill, R. (2012), Promoting Authoritarianism Abroad, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yafimava, K. (2012), The Transit Dimension of EU Energy Security: Russian Gas Transit Across Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova, Oxford, UK: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yafimava, K. and Stern, J. (2007), The 2007 Russia-Belarus Gas Agreement. Oxford Energy Comment. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.Google Scholar
Yin, R.K. (1989), Case Study Research. Design and Methods, revised edn. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Youngs, R. (2002), ‘The European Union and democracy promotion in the Mediterranean: a new or disingenuous strategy?’, Democratization 9: 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Youngs, R. (2004), ‘Normative dynamics and strategic interests in the EU’s external identity’, Journal of Common Market Studies 42: 415–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Youngs, R. (2010), ‘Energy: a reinforced obstacle to democracy?’, in P. Burnell and R. Youngs (eds), New Challenges to Democratization, Abingdon Oxon, UK: Routledge, pp. 171–187.Google Scholar