Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:04:45.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking Recent Democratization: Lessons from the Postcommunist Experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Valerie Bunce
Valerie Bunce
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access

Abstract

This study compares democratization in the postcommunist region (or the twenty-seven countries that emerged from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe) in order to evaluate some of the assumptions and arguments in the literature on recent democratization in southern Europe and Latin America. Five conclusions are drawn, all of which challenge the received wisdom about democratization in southern Europe and Latin America. First, the uncertainty surrounding the postcommunist transitions to democracy varied significantly. This influenced, in turn, the strategies of transition and their payoffs. This also meant that the most successful transitions in the postcommunist context involved a sharp break with the old order. Second, popular mobilization often functioned to support the democratic project. Third, nationalist mobilization was also helpful, though this depended upon whether it began with the breakdown of authoritarian rule or had a longer history—with the latter compromising the democratic project. Fourth, if the timing of nationalist mobilization was critical for the success of democratization in those cases where such mobilization occurred, then the strength of the opposition was the key factor in the remaining cases. Finally, while democratic consolidation necessarily enhances the prospects for democratic sustainability, the failure to consolidate democracy does not necessarily threaten the continuation of democratic rule. Indeed, as in the Russian case, such a failure may prolong democratic rule. This suggests, in turn, that a key distinction must be made between the optimal conditions for democratization and optimal strategies.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , January 2003 , pp. 167 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 2002

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

1 See, especially, O'Donnell, Guillermo, Schmitter, Philippe C., and Whitehead, Laurence, Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, vols. 1–4 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

2 Huntington, , The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

3 See also Fish, M. Steven, “Postcommunist Subversion: Social Science and Democratization in East Europe and Eurasia,” Slavic Review 58 (Winter 1999)Google Scholar; Bunce, Valerie, “Comparative Democratization: Big and Bounded Conclusions,” Comparative Political Studies 33 (August-September 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carothers, Thomas, “The End of the Transition Paradigm,” Journal of Democracy 13 (January 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See Fish, M. Steven, “The Determinants of Economic Reform in the Postcommunist World,” East European Politics and Societies 12 (Winter 1998)Google Scholar.

5 Linz, Juan and Stepan, Alfred, Problems of Domestic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Postcommunist Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Yashar, Deborah J., “Democracy, Indigenous Movements, and the Postliberal Challenge in Latin America,” World Politics 52 (October 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Rose, Richard, “Uses of Social Capital in Russia: Modern, Pre-Modern, and Anti-Modern,” Post-Soviet Affairs 16 (January-March 2000)Google Scholar; Howard, Marc, The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

7 See Thomas, Daniel C., The Helsinki Effect: International Norms, Human Rights and the Demise of Communism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Wedel, Janine, Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe (New York: St. Martin's, 1998)Google Scholar; Henderson, Sarah L., “Selling Civil Society: Western Aid and the Non-Governmental Organization Sector in Russia,” Comparative Political Studies 35 (March 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 King, , “Post-Postcommunism: Transition, Comparison, and the End of ‘Eastern Europe,’” World Politics 53 (October 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the divergent political and economic dynamics of the postcommunist region, see Bunce, Valerie, “The Political Economy of Postsocialism,” Slavic Review 58 (Winter 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; www.freedomhouse.org/ratings/index; Karen Dawisha, “Post-Communism's Troubled Steps toward Democracy: An Aggregate Analysis of Progress in the Twenty-seven New States” (Manuscript, Center for the Study of Post-Communist Societies, University of Maryland, September 1997).

9 McFaul, Michael, “The Fourth Wave of Democracy and Dictatorship: Noncooperative Transitions in the Postcommunist World,” World Politics 54 (January 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. Steven Fish, “The Dynamics of Democratic Erosion,” and Hanson, Stephen E., “Defining Democratic Consolidation,” both in Anderson, Richard D., Fish, M. Steven, Hanson, Stephen E., and Roeder, Philip G., eds., Postcommunism and the Theory of Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar. Interwar Europe and post-WW II Latin America also provide an ideal laboratory for the study of democratic breakdown. See Bermeo, Nancy, Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times: The Citizenry and the Collapse of Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

10 Popov, Vladimir, The Political Economy of Growth in Russia, Program on New Approaches to Russian Security, no. 17 (Cambridge: Davis Center, Harvard University, 2000)Google Scholar; Frye, Timothy, “The Perils of Polarization: Economic Performance in the Postcommunist World,” World Politics 54 (April 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aslund, Anders, Building Capitalism: The Transformation of the Soviet Bloc (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Kopstein, Jeffrey S. and Reilly, David A., “Geographical Diffusion and the Transformation of the Postcommunist World,” World Politics 53 (October 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. “Mark Beissinger, Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Bunce, Valerie, Subversive Institutions: The Design and the Destruction of Socialism and the State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leff, Carol Skalnik, “Democratization and Disintegration in Multinational States: The Breakup of the Communist Federations,” World Politics 51 (January 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; King, Charles, “The Benefits of Ethnic War: Understanding Eurasia's Unrecognized States,” World Politics 53 (July 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Innes, Abby, Czechoslovakia: The Short Goodbye (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Karklins, Rasma, Ethnopolitics and the Transition to Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

12 O'Donnell, Schmitter, and Whitehead (fn. 1); Karl, Terry Lynn, “Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America,” Comparative Politics 23 (Spring 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Palma, Guiseppe Di, To Craft Democracy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

13 Rustow, , “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model,” Comparative Politics 2 (April 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 O'Donnell, Schmitter, and Whitehead (fn. 1); Gunther, Richard, “Spain: The Very Model of a Modern Elite Settlement,” in Higley, John and Gunther, Richard, eds., Elites and Democratic Consolidation in Latin America and Southern Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Fishman, Robert M., “Rethinking State and Regime: Southern Europe's Transition to Democracy,” World Politics 42 (April 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haggard, Stephen and Kaufman, Robert, The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Maravall, Jose Maria, “Politics and Policy: Economic Reforms in Southern Europe,” in Pereira, Luiz Carlos Bresser, Maravall, Jose Maria, and Przeworski, Adam, eds., Economic Reforms in New Democracies: A Social Democratic Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)Google Scholar. Moderate policies, however, do not imply the absence of political conflict. See Bermeo, Nancy, “Myths of Moderation,” Comparative Politics 29 (April 1997)Google Scholar.

15 See fn. 8.

16 In Hungary mass mobilization was understood to be politically risky (and turned out ultimately to be unnecessary), given the brutal suppression of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, on the one hand, and the willingness of the reform communists, even before the roundtable, to jump on the democratic bandwagon, on the other hand. See O'Neil, Patrick H., “Revolution from Within: Institutional Analysis, Transitions from Authoritarianism, and the Case of Hungary,” World Politics 48 (July 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 See Grzymala-Busse, Anna M., Redeeming the Communist Past: The Regeneration of Communist Parties in East-Central Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Because Poland was the first country in the region to break with communist party rule, its transition was somewhat more uncertain. Given the character of the Soviet bloc, however, developments in Poland during the first half of 1989 lowered the risks of transition for other members of the bloc.

19 Elster, Jon, ed., The Roundtable Talks and the Breakdown of Communism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

20 Luong, Pauline Jones, Institutional Change and Political Continuity in Post-Soviet Central Asia: Power, Perceptions and Pacts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 On the benefits of breaking with past leadership, see Aslund (fn. 10); Frye (fn. 10); McFaul (fn. 9); and Bunce (fn. 8). Hungary, again, provides an exception. Major economic reforms were introduced only after the second competitive election, when the ex-communists returned to power with a large mandate. However, Hungary was also exceptional in how far reforms went prior to the end of communist party rule.

22 Loveman, Brian, “Protected Democracies and Military Guardianship: Political Transitions in Latin America, 1978–1993,” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 36 (Summer 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 The key phrase is “members of the Soviet bloc.” For those communist regimes outside the bloc or mavericks within the bloc (Albania, Romania, and Yugoslavia), party control over the military was compromised. It was precisely in these cases that the exit from state socialism was violent. Variations in civil-military relations also account in part for the violent disintegration of the Yugoslav state, in contrast to the peaceful dissolution of both the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. See Bunce (fn. 11).

24 See Greskovits, Bela, “Rival Views of Postcommunist Market Society: The Path Dependence of Transitology,” in Dobry, Michel, ed., Democratic and Capitalist Transitions in Eastern Europe: Lessonsfor the Social Sciences (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000)Google Scholar.

25 For a parallel situation, see Bernhard, Michael, “Democratization in Germany: A Reappraisal,” Comparative Politics 33, no. 4 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 See Czergo, Zsuzsa, “Language and Democracy: A Comparative Study of Contestations over Language Use in Romania and Slovakia” (Ph.D. diss., George Washington University, 2000)Google Scholar; Derluguian, Georgi, “The Tale of Two Resorts: Abkhazia and Adjaria before and since the Soviet Collapse,” in Crawford, Beverly and Lipschutz, Ronnie D., eds., The “Myth” of Ethnic Conflict: Politics, Economics and Cultural Violence, Research Monograph, no. 98. (Berkeley: University of California International and Area Studies, 1998)Google Scholar; Suny, Ronald, The Making of the Georgian Nation, 2d ed. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Valerie Bunce and Stephen Watts, “Managing Diversity and Sustaining Democracy: Ethnofederal versus Unitary States in the Postsocialist World” (Paper presented at the workshop on Power-Sharing and Peace-Making, San Diego, December 10—11,2001).

27 See Beissinger (fn. 11); and Besnik Pula, “Contested Sovereignty and State Disintegration: The Rise of the Albanian Secessionist Movement in Kosovo” (Master's Thesis, Georgetown University, 2001). On the Serbian case, see Valere P. Gagnon, “Liberalism and Minorities: Serbs as Agents and Victims of Liberal Conceptions of Space” (Paper presented at the workshop on Citizenship in Multicultural States: Comparing the Former Yugoslavia and Israel, Austrian Institute of International Affairs, Vienna, April 20–21,2001).

28 See, for example, Higley and Gunther (fn. 14).

29 See, for example, Bunce (fn. 8); Stoner-Weiss, Kathryn, “The Limited Reach of Russia's Party System,” Politics and Society 29 (September 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crowley, Stephen and Ost, David, eds., Workers after Workers' States: Labor and Politics in Post-Communist Europe (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001)Google Scholar.

30 See, especially, Ahl, Richard, “Society and Transition in Russia,” Communist and Postcommunist Studies 32 (April 1999)Google Scholar; and Brader, Ted and Tucker, Joshua, “The Emergence of Mass Partisanship in Russia,” AmericanJournalofPolitical Science 45 (January 2001)Google Scholar; for a different view, see Solovei, Valerii, “Kommunisticheskaya i natsionalisticheskoi transformatsii Rossii,” in Shevtsova, Lilia, ed., Rossiia: politichestkaya (Russia: Politics) (Moscow: Carnegie Center, 1998)Google Scholar.

31 Three very insightful analyses of the Yelstin era are Shevtsova, Lilia, Yeltsin's Russia: Myths and Realities (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1999)Google Scholar; McFaul, Michael, Russia's Unfinished Revolution: Political Changefrom Gorbachev to Yeltsin (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; and Breslauer, George, Gorbachev and Yeltsin as Leaders (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 See Hanson, Stephen E. and Kopstein, Jeffrey S., “The Weimar/Russia Comparison,” Post-Soviet Affairs 13 (July-September 1997)Google Scholar. However, there is one striking contrast between these two cases: civil society in interwar Germany was highly developed but German publics were polarized, whereas civil society in Russia is far less developed but Russian publics tend to cluster at the center of the political continuum. See Gibson, James, “Social Networks, Civil Society, and the Prospects for Consolidating Russia's Democratic Tradition,” American Journal of Political Science 45 (January 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Berman, Sheri, “Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic,” World Politics 49 (April 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 See, in particular, Hendley, Kathryn, “Legal Development in Post-Soviet Russia,” Post-Soviet Affairs 13 (October-December 1997)Google Scholar; Stoner-Weiss, Kathryn, Resisting the State: Reform and Retrenchment in Post-Soviet Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar. A historical perspective on rule of law in Russia is provided in Yaney, George, “Law, Society, and the Domestic Regime in Russia in Historical Perspective,” American Political Science Review 59 (June 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 See Woodruff, David, Money Unmade: Barter and the Fate ofRussian Capitalism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

35 See, especially, Brudny, Yitzhak, Reinventing Russia: Russian Nationalism and the Soviet State, 1953–1991 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; and idem, “National Identity and Democracy in Postcommunist Russia” (Manuscript, Department of Political Science, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, August 2001). See also Vujacic, Veljko, “Historical Capacities, Nationalist Mobilization and Political Outcomes in Russia and Serbia: A Weberian View,” Theory and Society 25 (December 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beissinger, Mark, “Demise of an Empire-State: Identity, Legitimacy and the Deconstruction of Soviet Politics,” in Young, Crawford, ed., The Rising Tide of Cultural Pluralism (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Bunce (fn. 11), chaps. 4–5.

36 Holmes, , “What Russia Teaches Us Now,” American Prospect 32 (July-August 1997), 33Google Scholar.

37 See Weingast, Barry, “The Political Foundations of Democracy and the Rule of Law,” American Political Science Review 91 (June 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Solnick, Steven, Putin and the Provinces, Research Monograph, no. 115 (Cambridge: Harvard University, Davis Center, Program on New Approaches to Russian Security, 2000)Google Scholar.

39 See Moser, Robert, Unexpected Outcomes: Electoral Systems, Political Parties, and Representation in Russia (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

40 Remington, Thomas, The Russian Parliament: Institutional Evolution in a Transitional Regime, 1989–1999 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 See, especially, Bahry, Donna, Boaz, Cynthia, and Gordon, Stacy Burnett, “Tolerance, Transition and Support for Civil Liberties in Russia,” Comparative Political Studies 30 (August 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gibson, James L., “The Russian Dance with Democracy,” Post-Soviet Affairs 17 (April-June 2001)Google Scholar.

42 Schwartz, Herman, The Strugglefor ConstitutionalJustice in Post-Communist Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Sharlet, Robert, “Putin and the Politics of Law in Russia,” Post-Soviet Affairs 17 (July-September 2001)Google Scholar; Solomon, Peter, “Putin's Judicial Reform,” East European Constitutional Review 11 (Winter-Spring 2002)Google Scholar.

43 See Murrell, Peter, “What Is Shock Therapy? What Did It Do in Poland and Russia?” Post-Soviet Affairs 9, no. 2 (1993)Google Scholar; Appel, Hilary, “Voucher Privatization in Russia: Structural Consequences and Mass Response in the Second Period of Reform,” Europe-Asia Studies 49, no. 4 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 See Abdelal, Rawi, Economic Nationalism after Empire:A Comparative Perspective on Nation, Econ omy and Security in Post-Soviet Eurasia (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

45 The phrasing, as well as some of the logic, is borrowed from Hellman, Joel S., “Winners Take All: The Politics of Partial Reform in Postcommunist Transitions,” World Politics 50 (January 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Bunce, Valerie, “The Political Economy of the Brezhnev Era: The Rise and Fall of Corporatism,” BritishJournal ofPolitical Science 13 (January 1983)Google Scholar; idem, “The Empire Strikes Back: The Evolution of the Eastern Bloc from a Soviet Asset to a Soviet Liability,” International Organization 39 (Winter 1984–1985)Google Scholar.

47 Bakerowicz, See, Socialism, Capitalism, Transformation (Budapest: Central European University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

48 Shleifer, and Treisman, , Without a Map: Political Tactics and Economic Reform in Russia. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000), 4Google Scholar.

49 Bunce, Valerie and Csanadi, Maria, “Uncertainty and the Transition: Postcommunism in Hungary,” East European Politics and Societies 7 (Spring 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 McFaul (fn. 31), 310.

51 On the instability of these coalitions, see Philip Roeder, “The Rejection of Authoritarianism in the Soviet Successor States,” and Hanson, “Defining Democratic Consolidation,” both in Anderson et al. (fn. 9).

52 Przeworski, and Teune, , The Logic ofSocial Inquiry (New York: John Wiley, 1970)Google Scholar.

53 See, for example, McAdam, Doug, Tarrow, Sidney, and Tilly, Charles, Dynamics of Contention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.