Russian and east European politics

Résumé du document

Full democratization does not necessarily follow regime change. Hybrid or ‘grey democracies' have also emerged after 1989. Choose two countries from the former Soviet bloc, one from the countries recently admitted to the European Union and one such as Ukraine, Belarus, or Moldova and evaluate the factors that have most affected the process of transition in both cases. Seventeen years after the fall of Berlin's wall, the countries that used to be under the rule of Soviet Union are trying to achieve their democratic transitions. This transition is not only a simple democratic transition but rather a multidimensional and complicated process characterized by the term ‘triple transition' . In fact, these countries must implement changes in different levels of politics: not only do they have to build a consensus on the national identity but they also had to make important constitutional choices and to revolution their economy from a collectivized system towards market economies. Some countries, mainly in the Eastern Europe, managed to begin the transition and entered the European Union in 2004 whereas other did not really succeed in achieving the step of a substantive democracy. It can be interesting to focus on two countries that are at a different stage of the democratic transition and to analyse what shaped these various paths.

Extraits

[...] This choice has an impact on the stability and the formation of a coherent party system. Indeed, it is argued that a proportional system can prevent party system from stability and polarization whereas the majoritarian system avoids it but does not let a chance to small party. The threshold in proportional systems is particularly discussed. For instance, in the first Polish elections of 1991 there was no threshold what led to a big fragmentation of parties and an impossible coalition and ruling of the country. [...]

[...] In addition, it seems that the model of democracy that former communist states should tend towards is shaped by European and American standards whereas it could also be argued that there may be a special path for these countries that differs from Western democracies. [...]

[...] It has to be discussed what conditions are shaping the democratic transition and how they can do it. In order to answer this question, let us focus on three groups of factors that are the background environment of the transition, the ‘rules of the game' chosen by the elites in both countries and the extent to which civil society is playing a role in the democratic transition in both countries. First, we shall evaluate the influence of the background environment that is legacy of history, the nature of regime change and the international context of the transition. [...]

[...] The first and last factors seem more decisive to me insofar that the rules of the institutional games are not sufficient because they are not even respected sometimes. If every factor seem to be important, it has to be said that there is no ‘form' that would explain how to become a democratic state. Although it is clear that some formal rules are needed, it cannot be assured that they are always applied and counter examples can always be found. [...]

[...] Institutional choices are shaped by the elites of these countries. In both countries, they did not share the same characteristics and did not influence the democratic transition to the same extent. In Poland, there was a tradition of a strong civil society and reformist elites were active but in Romania, elites remained in power and were strongly conservative and not willing to reform the country. It can explain why the transition did not take place towards the same path in both countries. [...]