Two decades ago many people thought the number of democratic countries would increase significantly in Europe. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was regarded as a potent impetus for countries of Central and Eastern Europe to develop into democratic Western-like states. People in Western Europe and North America as well as people of Central and Eastern Europe strived for democratic societies in the post-Soviet regions.
However, now it is evident that Europe has hardly been ‘enriched’ by truly democratic states as countries of Central and Eastern Europe developed in semi-democratic or even authoritarian states. Researchers single out different political, economic, cultural and historical reasons for such trends. The future of these countries is also seen differently. Clearly, apart from political, cultural, historical and socio-economic factors, geopolitical situation will play an important role in the development of these countries.
It is necessary to note that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have much in common. Roberts (2006) notes that Communist heritage affected the countries in quite a specific way making the states more centralized and people less politically active. At that, cultural peculiarities of the countries and economic factors resulted in different types of democracies which have been developed in this or that country of Central and Eastern Europe.
Researchers suggest different classifications of the democracies in the region. However, it is possible to note that all of these classifications are based on the level of authoritarian rule in a country. It is possible to exploit the classification used in in the study implemented by Freedom House (Freedom House 2012).
According to this study, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe can be divided into the following groups: consolidated democracies (Estonia, Slovenia, Latvia, Czech Republic, Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia and Hungary), semi-consolidated democracies (Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro), hybrid regimes (Albania, Bosnia, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova), semi-consolidated authoritarian regimes (Kosovo and Armenia) and consolidated authoritarian regimes (Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan).
Thus, to understand the future of these countries, it is important to consider political systems within the countries and define factors which resulted in the development of such regimes.
Roberts (2006) analyses the democracies in terms of the variables suggested by Lijphart. One of the variables is centralization of power within democratic powers. Roberts (2006) points out that in the majority of cases democratic states do not have a very strict centralized power. However, when it comes to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, they are all unitary and centralized.
On the one hand, centralization cannot be regarded as a negative feature as it is often associated with well-organised structures which cooperate and contribute to the development of countries. Furthermore, post-communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe are rather small. They are characterised by ethnical homogeneity. Therefore, centralization is but natural for these countries.
Nonetheless, centralization which is a characteristic feature of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe leads to negative outcomes. This centralization prevents proper cooperation between different bodies within the state. In federal states, local authorities interact with federal bodies which, in their turn, cooperate with each other. Thus, needs of all stakeholders are addressed to the fullest. Centralization is deprived of such a comprehensive cooperation which leads to a gap between the power and people.
It is important to note that centralization is not only caused by ethnical homogeneity. The Soviet Union was a highly centralised state and the Communist rule can still be traced in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Roberts 2006).
Roberts (2006) claims that the countries employ the pattern used in the Soviet Union where centralization was characterised by a variety of negative features. First, there was almost no cooperation among different bodies of the state. Likewise, the countries of the post-Soviet region show lack of cooperation between their institutions.
The centre often imposes requirements that should be strictly followed by regions, though the centre often does not have comprehensive information on the matter. Thus, it is possible to note that centralization has become one of distinctive features of democracy in the countries in question.
Apart from centralization, Roberts (2006) singles out another peculiarity of these democracies. The researcher notes that the countries are highly consensus, i.e. their governments are characterised by:
[A] multiparty system, the predominance of minority or surplus majority cabinets, a rough balance between the executive and legislature, a low level of disproportionality in electoral results, and strong corporatism. (Roberts 2006, p. 39)
Notably, the number of parties in these countries significantly exceeds the number of parties in established democracies. Again, there are two sides of this plurality. On the one hand, a lot of different groups can be represented in legislative bodies of the countries. This can be regarded as a positive sign of democracy as needs of larger numbers of people can be met.
Therefore, it is possible to state that former Communist republics managed to evolve into democratic states (Rupnik 1999). However, the Communist heritage affected the development of democracies which differ from established democracies of Western Europe. The rule of a single party made people unprepared to the availability of a number of political forces.
Thus, this kind of plurality is very negative in nature. The electoral systems of the countries in question are characterised by wasted votes. There are many parties and people often give their votes to countries which have no chances to enter the parliament.
These wasted votes are often used by elite groups which obtain more seats in legislative bodies. Furthermore, the abundance of political parties is also associated with people’s unawareness of political agendas of this or that party. This unawareness makes people alienate from politics. It makes them less politically active.
It is also necessary to point out that people are somewhat alienated as they still feel distrust towards their governments. Bideleux (2007) claims that the autocratic rule of the Communist Party in the USSR made people see the power as something alienated from people and real issues.
People of Central and Eastern Europe did not rely on the support of the political forces and never participated in the political life of their countries as the Communist Party was a single ruling force which did not take into account people’s will and needs. After the dissolution of the USSR, the countries had a very difficult period when political forces were unable to take control over the country’s development. Non-state agents (criminals) had a significant influence which spread to almost all spheres of people’s life.
All these factors contributed greatly to development of people’s distrust towards political forces in the country as people have been witnesses of these forces’ inability to cooperate and lead the country. Apart from people’s alienation, this kind of plurality is proved to be ineffective as political parties have too different agendas and can hardly cooperate with each other (Way & Levitskiy 2007).
The lack of cooperation and the abundance of political parties as well as people’s alienation can be explained. In the first place, the Soviet Union was a state ruled by a single Communist Party. It is quite natural that after the dissolution of the USSR the former Soviet republics were striving for plurality.
The rule of a single force proved to be authoritarian and ineffective. Therefore, numerous political parties focusing on specific groups of people or particular issues have appeared in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Vejvoda & Kaldor 2002). People of the countries in question tried to exploit patterns used in Western Europe, but they deemed a greater number of parties would positively affect the development of democracy in their countries.
At this point, it is important to pay attention to political struggle in the countries. It is very suggestive. In the countries with consolidated authoritarian regimes (e.g. Belarus or Kazakhstan) there is almost no strong opposition.
Interestingly, Levitsky and Way (2010, pp. 183-184) note that “authoritarian breakdown in Serbia (2000), Georgia (2003), and Ukraine (2004)” can be regarded as a sign of the rise of opposition and development of new “opposition tactics” and formation of movements which “toppled non-democratic governments (the so-called color [sic] revolutions)”.
Admittedly, these colour revolutions did bring some changes, though they should be seen as a sign of unpreparedness of people of Central and Eastern Europe to exploit effective protest tactics which could have positive results.
Clearly, political forces of the new states were unprepared to cooperate and even protest properly as the Soviet rule presupposed strict obedience rather than cooperation (Berg-Schlosser 2007). The years of the Soviet rule show that protests were always suppressed by the Party. People even failed to develop proper protest tactics as all attempts were always suppressed. Roberts (2006) also notes that people are now very hostile to Communist Party especially in the Balkans or in such countries as the Czech Republic or Poland.
This contributes to the lack of cooperation among the parties as some political forces in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe are still associated with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Roberts (2006) states that even effective policies are often ignored if they were initiated by parties associated with the Communist Party of the USSR.
Besides, Roberts (2006, p. 51) stresses that “communism had eliminated almost all traces of civil and economic society, the source of the bargaining partners for corporatism”. This leads to the short-lived governments which are unable to follow a particular political trajectory.
Another distinctive feature of democracies in Central and Eastern Europe is corruption. The corruption is a result of the unstable political situation in the countries. Clearly, corruption also contributes to the development of distrust to the political forces. Again, the corruption is not only a product of the difficult times of the 1990s, but it is a product of the Soviet system which was also rather corrupted (Levitsky & Way 2010). There were some interest groups and certain political elite which made major (or rather all) decisions.
Therefore, it is clear that countries of Central and Eastern Europe have developed quite specific democracies due to the Soviet heritage. There are lots of features which are common for the countries. However, there are also many differences. These differences are not based on cultural peculiarities only. Geopolitical factors significantly affected development of the countries of the region. Thus, some countries managed to develop more established democracies whereas some countries made almost no progress since the early 1990s.
As far as the most democratic states are concerned, they were established in Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia and Hungary (Freedom House 2012). There are several reasons for these nations’ success. In the first place, these countries managed to break connections with Russia quite quickly. These countries managed to choose a particular West-oriented trajectory. It is necessary to note that the connections were not very close historically.
Therefore, the countries had no difficulties with this process. The choice of these countries was appreciated by such established democracies as the USA, the UK, France, Germany, etc. These countries provided financial aid and other types of support to the new post-Soviet countries which had made the choice. The financial aid enabled countries to develop economically which, in its turn, led to political stability.
Admittedly, not all post-Soviet countries enjoyed stability and economic growth. Such states as Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro were not that successful (Freedom House 2012). However, these countries failed to develop consolidated democracies due to ethnical strife.
Military conflicts led to unstable political and economic situation in the region. Nonetheless, these countries managed to overcome the difficulties and political forces managed to start cooperating. Now these countries are developing quite rapidly. Though, there are various issues to address, it is possible to trace positive trends in the countries’ development. Besides, these countries also obtain support of Western democracies which leads to development of economic and political stability in the region.
Hybrid regimes in Albania, Bosnia, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova as well as semi-consolidated authoritarian regimes in Kosovo and Armenia developed due to a number of reasons (Freedom House 2012). For instance, Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo suffered from a number of ethnical conflicts.
These conflicts led to the lack of stability which, in its turn, resulted in a slow development. As for Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, these countries still have quite close connections with Russia, i.e. with the old Soviet model of centralized power where Russia still dictates certain requirements. Notably, Moldova and Georgia are more successful in their attempts to become free from the influence of the former central power.
These countries are trying to change the trajectory of their development. These countries also obtain assistance from Western democracies. As for Ukraine, the country is still under a significant influence as Russia still interferes in the home and foreign policy of Ukraine. The country has not still chosen the trajectory and the elements of Western democratic models are intermingled with elements of Soviet-Russian authoritarian regime.
Finally, consolidated authoritarian regimes developed in Belarus (as well as in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) due to the fact that these countries still have close connections with Russia and still exploit old Soviet models. In these countries a specific elite group is in power. For instance, Belarusian President Lukashenko has been in office since 1994. Lukashenko employs authoritarian ways to rule the country.
The country is characterised by the absence of significant protest movements. There were several attempts to overthrow the existing regime, but all attempts failed. The centralization is especially vivid in this state. Notably, economic situation in the country is relatively stable. However, judicial power is a manifestation of the will of the groups in power (Roberts 2006). There are also lots of cases of violation of people’s civil rights. It is also important to note that there are no significant political changes in the state.
All these historical facts and contemporary trends can help predict future trajectory change in the post-Soviet countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Clearly, consolidated democracies of the region will continue their cooperation with Western states. Such countries as Poland can be regarded as a very good example of a country which is developing rapidly. Thus, judicial system of this country is considered to be the best in the world (Roberts 2006).
Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia and Hungary are characterised by a significant change. These countries show traits of democratisation in all spheres. People of these countries have already become politically active.
They participate in elections and they take part in the process of decision making. What is more, people of these countries have trust in their government and other political forces. The people of these countries feel they do influence the development of their country (Berg-Schlosser 2007). Of course, this is one of the signs of the democratic state.
Notably, development of democratic state will also lead to stability in the country. Furthermore, economic support of the Western countries will help the former Soviet republics become in a row with established democracies of Western Europe. It is possible to state that the future trajectory of these countries is unlikely to change, which will positively affect the development of these countries.
As for such countries as Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Moldova and Georgia; the situation in these countries is not that stable and the trajectory of their development can change (Berg-Schlosser 2007). However, this change is also unlikely. These countries show quite definite Western orientation. They employ Western models of development. There are signs of democratisation in all spheres.
Remarkably, the power has restored people’s trust which is very important. People start actively participating in the political life of the state. One of the possible hazards to the democratic development of the countries (especially Croatia and Serbia) is still ethnic strife. Economic crises can also cause a change of the trajectory.
At that, assistance of Western democracies can prevent both economic constraints and change of trajectory. Even when an economic crisis breaks out in one of these countries, the countries will still remain focused on Western models of development which proved to be effective.
Finally, the countries which can change trajectories are Belarus and Ukraine. As far as the former is concerned, there are signs of growing discontent with the present regime. The rising number of protests in the country can be regarded as a sign of an upcoming change. Though there is still lack of such democratic features as free media, people still get to know about the protest movements which can eventually lead to a change.
At that, the protest movements are also West-oriented, i.e. protestors require democratic development of the country. Furthermore, tension between Belarus and Russia can also become an impetus to change the political trajectory. Finally, economic decline can lead to the growth of people’s discontent, which, in its turn, will lead to changes.
As far as Ukraine is concerned, the political situation in the country is quite unstable (Berg-Schlosser 2007). The power cannot gain people’s trust. Corruption is another hazard to the democratic development of the country. There is still no cooperation between political forces within the country.
The major political forces of the country have quite opposite agendas and orientations. Thus, it is quite difficult to predict which force will gain more power. Upcoming elections can provide some insights into possible scenarios of the country’s development. However, existing trends show that the country is likely to choose the Western model of development and will continue democratic development.
In conclusion, it is necessary to point out that the heritage of the Soviet Union is still manifested in the political systems of the post-Soviet countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Many countries of this region still exploit Soviet models of governance. Thus, the countries are highly centralised which is not only a result of quite small size of the states, but is also a product of extremely centralized power in the Soviet Union. Corruption which is a significant issue to be addressed in the region is also a product of the former Soviet rule.
The abundance of political parties is another distinctive feature of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. At that, people and political forces of the countries are hostile to the Communist party and parties associated with it. This often negatively affects the process of decision making. The tension between parties within the countries leads to the lack of cooperation which, in its turn, prevents countries from proper democratic development.
It is also important to note that the countries of the region in question have certain peculiarities. Thus, some countries are rapidly developing employing Western models. These countries obtain assistance from Western democracies. At the same time, they have almost no connections with Russia which still exploits authoritarian models.
However, some countries are developing at a slower pace due to cultural peculiarities. Ethnical strife and economic constraints have prevented these countries from democratization. Finally, there is still the country (Belarus) which employs authoritarian models.
However, irrespective of certain factors, it is possible to trace definite trends which show gradual democratisation of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe. More so, it is possible to trace the trajectory chosen by the countries. The vast majority of the countries have chosen democratization and Western models of development.
These countries are highly unlikely to change the trajectory of their development. However, such countries as Belarus and Ukraine can change the trajectories. Though, it is also necessary to note that these countries are likely to continue democratization exploiting patterns of established democracies.
Therefore, it is possible to state that Central and Eastern Europe can soon (within several decades) consist of democratic countries only. Admittedly, the Soviet rule had a great impact on each country and it still influences the development of these countries. Nonetheless, the countries start exploiting patterns used by established democracies of Western Europe. The former Soviet states of Central and Eastern Europe are gradually becoming well-established democratic countries, therefore, reshaping the geopolitical situation in Europe.
Reference List
Berg-Schlosser, D 2007, ‘The quality of post-communist democracy’, in S White, J Batt & PG Lewis (ed.), Developments in Central and East European Politics, Duke University Press, Hampshire.
Bideleux, R 2007, ‘Making democracy work’ in the Eastern half of Europe: explaining and conceptualizing divergent trajectories of post-communist democratization’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society 8.2, pp. 109-130.
Freedom House 2003, Nations in Transit 2012, <https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2012>.
Levitsky, S & Way, LA 2010, Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the Cold War, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Roberts, A 2006, ‘What kind of democracy is emerging in Eastern Europe?’, Post-Soviet Affairs 22.1, pp. 37-64.
Rupnik, J 1999, ‘The postcommunist divide’, Journal of Democracy 10.1, pp. 57-62.
Vejvoda, I & Kaldor, M 2002, Democratization in Central and Eastern Europe, Continuum International Publishing Group, London.
Way, LA & Levitsky, S 2007, ‘Linkage, leverage, and the post-Communist Divide’, East European Politics and Societies 21.1, pp. 48-66.