Democratization in Eastern Europe: a viable model for the Middle East?

AuthorKurtoglu-Eskisar, Gul M.
PositionDEFECTIVE DEMOCRACIES - Report

Introduction

Following the end of the Cold War and the rapid democratization of Eastern Europe, expectations that the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) would soon follow suit ran high. (1) Due to the lack of any significant changes that could be interpreted as a sign towards democratization in that region, however, such expectations were gradually replaced with increasing pessimism. Numerous factors that emphasize the socio-cultural, economic and political characteristics of the region have since been offered to explain the persisting authoritarianism throughout the MENA. Meanwhile, however, any possible impact of the nearby East European transformation-or its absence-over the same region remains unexplored, and constitutes the starting point of this study.

The significance of this issue is self-evident, given the fact that almost a decade before the end of the 20t" century, most parts of Eastern Europe were still under the communist rule and, with a few exceptions, the Middle East was checker squared with varying degrees of authoritarianism. Almost a decade into the 211 century and East European countries are now considered as democracies. (2) The Middle East, however, continues to be dominated by authoritarian regimes. What are some of the outstanding characteristics of the democratic transformation in Eastern Europe? What are some of the conditions that help prolong the lifespan of the current authoritarian regimes in the Middle East? In art, putting contrasting colours together intensifies their effect. Similarly, going over some of the basic points addressed by these questions in this comparative exercise can help to understand any problems identified with them better. It also constitutes the main goal of this simple study. While it does not offer an overarching theory that explains the success of the one and the failure of the other, overviewing some of the factors that have marked the political developments in both regions can provoke some ideas toward constructing such a theory in later stages. On a wider theoretical scale, if pursued further, a comparative overview of these two contrasting outcomes can contribute to the general theories on democratization. From a non-scholar view, it can also form a step in developing policies and measures that can promote international peace and security.

Although studies on the political reincarnation of Eastern Europe or the dearth of change in the MENA are plenty, they have not been conversant with one another. In a few studies that exist, this lacuna is attributed to two factors. One of them is the lack of any dramatic or immediate effects of the East European experience on the MENA. According to Moore (1994), the relative lack of communication between two regions during the Cold War and certain key differences in the state and administrative structures, have engendered "the model of democratic transformation presented by Eastern Europe ... generally useless as a strategy to those aspiring for such a transformation in the Arab World."

The second reason, meanwhile, stems from mundane academic realities. Valerie Bunce (2000: 721) aptly describes it regarding regional studies as: most comparativists have spent their academic lives working on one area. Given the invested amount of intellectual capital, shifting to another area is very costly. Moreover, regional studies tend to develop their own concepts and their own research agendas. Both considerations carry one implication: Regional differences can arise, not because of empirical validity but because few studies cross regional divides and the divides themselves may very well manufacture interregional contrasts. This is a real version of an old problem, that is, case selection determining the conclusions drawn.

Nevertheless, at least two counter-points can be made to justify the necessity of a general comparison between these two regions. One of them is historic. At least some parts of current Eastern Europe, to some degree, share some history with the MENA, due to the Ottoman Empire. As Kreutz (1999) underlines, the southern tier of the former Soviet bloc countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia and even parts of Hungary and Ukraine had for centuries been part of the Ottoman Empire, just as the Arab World had been. The historical Ottoman, and at least the partly Muslim background of countries such as Yugoslavia and Albania which were not Soviet allies but still socialist and anti Western, was even stronger. Far from being a distant memory, the effects of the Ottoman rule on the contemporary political settings of various parts of Eastern Europe are still debated (Mungiu Pippidi 2006).

Second, on an ideological level, the collapse of communism and the fall of socialist ideas from grace worldwide has closely affected those Arab regimes, such as Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and South Yemen, which based their ideological raison d'etre at least to some extent on a form of statist, socialist and/or nationalist ideologies at some point since their independence (Albrecht and Schlumberger, 2004: 377). Above all, the ongoing transformation of Eastern Europe since 1990s has alerted the existing political regimes in the MENA to "[t]he apparent failure of viable alternatives to democracy around the world," as well as the globally emerging idea of spreading democracy as a desirable goal (Moore 1994). These challenges have further given the numerous authoritarian regimes in that region an incentive to seek new ways of prolonging their existence.

Nonetheless, making generalizations across regions does carry certain risks. Despite sharing a common communist past, Rose (2002: 39) warns that "[t]o lump all post-Communist states together is no more sensible than putting the United States, Canada, Brazil and Chile together because they are all in the Western Hemisphere." Referring to the post-Communist world, Kitschelt (2003: 49-50) also points out that "[m]easured in terms of the civic and political rights indexes developed by Freedom House, there is no region or set of countries on earth with a currently larger diversity of political regimes." Similar arguments can also be extended to the Middle East; which both harbors countries like Turkey, which is currently an EU candidate and a democracy, and Saudi Arabia, where whether to allow women to drive or not is still debated.

Differences notwithstanding, this study is based on the assumption that sufficient similarities exist to compare these two regions. This assumption is also supported by other observers, who refer to the "striking subregional similarities" while discussing the political evolution of postcommunist countries (Ekiert 2003: 91). It is consequently propelled by another simple observation that, despite all differences between the region's countries Eastern Europe has achieved something in common: democratization. And the Middle East has not. Any lessons that can be drawn from the successes of the former and the failures of the latter are pertinent to scholars and policymakers alike. And exceptions, as always, do not break the rules.

Eastern Europe

When communist regimes began collapsing one after another in 1989, the world was prepared to see a politically uniform region with countries suffering from identical weaknesses and dysfunctions that would take cookie cutter steps toward their existing political and economic problems. The world was badly mistaken. The emerging collage from the ruins comprised a highly diverse set of more than twenty-five sovereign polities with features that range from those of full-fledged competitive democracies with well protected civic and political rights all the way to authoritarian, personalist, if not despotic, rule. Measured in terms of the civic and political rights indexes developed by Freedom House, there is no region or set of countries on earth with a currently larger diversity of political regimes (Kitschelt 2003: 49-50).

Nevertheless, within this wide diversity, East European countries have emerged with a number of characteristics that have marked their transition to democracy, which also set them aside from the previous reformers in Southern Europe and Latin America. To start with, as earlier mentioned, there is the rich political diversity of the region despite its communist past, which emerged shortly after 1989, and later also affected the progress and outcome of each country in the region. Ekiert (2003: 90) points out that the 'pacted' transitions that took place in Poland and Hungary, the displacement of the communist regime through 'popular upsurge' that occurred in Czechoslovakia and East Germany, or the transformation from above that took place in Bulgaria produced different transitional institutions and patterns of political conflicts. These distinctive modes of power transfer were in part engendered by specific conditions in each country and interacted with both domestic communist legacies and broader regional developments ... [Consequently] In many countries former communists were able to retain political power; in others newly organized noncommunist oppositions emerged victorious.

Attempting to break clean with the past to an extent unseen by the earlier democratic transitions in Latin America and Southern Europe constitutes another significant characteristic of the East European transition. Bunce (2000: 717-18) argues that-unlike the earlier experiences in Southern Europe, such as Spain-this rejection has...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT