The helping hand: the role of the EU in the democratization of post-communist Europe.

• Author: Gherghina, Sergiu
• Position: Report

Introduction

The Huntingtonian third wave of democratization following the collapse of the Soviet Union represents an important area of study for many political scientists. It concerns a political transition from autocracy to democracy in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEEC) and rests on a premise that a regression to the political status quo ante is unlikely (Schmitter and Schneider 2004). The mere fact of such paradigmatic shift however is not always synonymous with successful democratization across the CEEC. One can identify four distinct categories of the former Communist states according to their level of democratization: (1) states that democratized, (2) states that returned to the former regime, (3) states that chose a different type of an authoritarian regime than before, and (4) states that did not clearly define their course.

Consequently, in order to explain the differences in the extent of their democratization, one has to account for numerous factors. Building on theories of democratization and previous research, this study aims to identify factors that lead to the differences in democratization across 20 out of the 29 post-Communist countries (2). This study gathers, in a single model, most of the variables used in previous research on democratization and shows which has a greater impact on democratization. Accordingly, the research is guided by the question: what factors shape the different developments of democratization across post-Communist European countries?

Considering that democracy is a form of governance of a state, no modern polity can turn into democracy unless it first becomes a state (3) (Linz and Stepan, 1996, 7). Therefore, this particular study concerns the time period that begins in 1993, a year that marks the complete formation of independent states after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and ends in 2004 when several of those post-Communist countries joined the EU. It uses qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and tests nine international and domestic factors, extracted from the literature, which may potentially influence the level of democratization across the CEEC. The results reveal the importance of the "carrot" of membership in the EU as a major factor in the process of democratization of the CEEC. In this context, this research tackles a significant issue at the border of comparative politics and international relations and generates lessons for both academia and practitioners. At the scientific level, these findings complement the existing literature in two ways. On the one hand, it establishes a link between post-Communist states and an international organization, namely the EU. On the other hand, this evidence confirms the suppositions of texts from early 90's that claimed that, based on the democratization experience of other regions, the role of international organization is crucial in such transitions. For practitioners, these findings are arguments for the beneficial role of the EU and permit to use it constructively in the future enlargements.

The first section of this article conceptualizes variables of the study and derives hypotheses for testing. The following three sections operationalize the concepts, present the research design and provide empirical findings of the research. The final section explains the results and tackles their implications.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

The adequate definition and conceptualization of terms and concepts is especially challenging when there is little agreement in the literature about them. Once established the conceptual framework, operationalization can be easier tackled. This section has two goals. First, it reviews both the literature on democratization in the post-Communist Europe and the factors that influence that process. Second, in light of previous research, it clarifies the concepts of this study and derives working hypotheses for testing. The first subsection concerns the notion of democratization, namely the dependent variable of the study; the second identifies independent variables, both international and domestic, and hypothesizes relationships.

Democratization--working definition

Developments in the post-Communist world received greater attention after the collapse of its authoritarian regimes and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. As such, the end of the transition process initiated between 1990 and 1991 became the primary topic of many studies. The variation in the end results of the transition reveals that: (1) some regimes have chosen and completed a transition to democracy, (2) others have been "arrested" at some point on their path to democracy and either regressed to the authoritarian type they had before or chose a different type of authoritarianism, and (3) others still struggle between democracy and Communism. This particular typology exposes that the common link between the three categories lies in its reference to democratization. Despite its widespread coverage in the literature, this concept remains difficult to operationalize.

This study aims to evaluate the extent of democratization reached in the transition process across the CEEC., However, considering that a successful process of democratization leads to democracy, the concept of democracy should be narrowed before clarifying the notion of democratization. Lipset defines democracy "as a political system which supplies regular constitutional opportunities for changing the governing officials and a social mechanism that permits the largest possible part of the population to influence major decisions by choosing among contenders for political office" (Lipset 1960, 45). Dahl (1971) approaches the concept by emphasizing its main features and, thus, providing measurable dimensions. At a general level, he sees the "continuous responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its citizens, considered a political equals" as a main characteristic of democracy (Dahl 1971, 1). In this context, he proposes a model with two axes, namely public contestation and participation, so as to emphasize the importance of government's receptivity and the possibility for people to formulate their preferences. By establishing four ideal-types of political systems-competitive oligarchies, closed hegemonies, inclusive hegemonies, and polyarchy-Dahl enumerates the necessary attributes for a political system to become a polyarchy: freedom to form and join organizations, freedom of expression, the right to vote, eligibility for public office, the right to run as a candidate, alternative sources of information, free and fair elections, and institutions for ensuring responsiveness of citizens (Dahl 1971, 3). Building on these bases, Diamond, Linz and Lipset (1990, 6-7) use the term "democracy" to describe a system of government where three conditions are met: meaningful and extensive competition among individuals in organized groups at regular intervals and excluding the rule of force; an inclusive level of political participation in the selection of leaders and policies; and a level of civil and political liberties sufficient to insure the integrity of political competition and participation.

All those definitions emphasize basic features of democracy and provide useful grounds for an appropriate conceptualization of democratization. By studying transition countries, Linz and Stepan (1996) provide a valuable definition of the process. Building on the idea that democracy should be seen as "the only game in town", they consider it composed of behavioral, attitudinal and constitutional features. The behavioral component tackles the non-existence of a significant political group in the state to overthrow the democratic regime; the attitudinal component assumes that even when facing severe crises, the vast majority of the people expect further changes to emerge only by respecting the democratic rules. At the constitutional level, the conflict has to be solved according to the norms and regulations already established, as their violation is costly and inefficient (Linz and Stepan 1996, 5). In this respect, democratization is a process of reaching agreement on political procedures that lead to election of a government in a free and popular vote. All this needs to occur when the government has de facto the power to generate new policies, and when the executive, legislative and judicial branches do not have to share power with other bodies dejure (Linz and Stepan 1996, 3). According to the above literature review, democratization is the process of transformation from an authoritarian (including totalitarian and semi-authoritarian) regime to a democracy, and is not a matter of existence or non-existence, but one of speed.

International Independent Variables and Hypotheses

Once established the dependent variable, it is imperative to provide details of the independent variables and formulate hypotheses regarding the outcomes they produce. At a first glance in the CEE region, the European Union (EU) and Russia are significant actors and dialogue partners for the majority of the states. The former represents the perspective of the future, whereas the latter represents, for the vast majority of the states, their past. The increased political and economic capabilities of these two actors can definitely influence the direction a state assumes and/or the speed of its transition, as detailed below.

In the absence of cross-national studies examining this issue and inspired by Linz and Stepan (1996) as well as by Pevehouse (2005), I consider the role of the EU in the pre-accession period (herein Europeanization) as a principal external factor in determining the degree of democratization. In the process of Communist erosion and delegitimation, the European Union and the Council of Europe induced post-Communist states to adopt their liberal norms and values of appropriate international and domestic conduct (Schimmelfennig 2000). The...