Introduction to political science

December 11th

Transition in Eastern Europe

The Eastern European transition took place after 1989, after the collapse of the
Communist Block and it was one of the final manifestations of a world-wide spread of
democratization over two decades – more precisely over a period that begun in 1974
when the regimes of Franco and Salazar (Spain and Portugal) fell.
1974 – Spain & Portugal (Southern Europe)
1980s – Latin America
late 80s – Eastern Asia
late of the 80s, early 90s – Eastern Europe
All these shifts from one regime to another cause the understanding of dynamics,
political structuring. Questions asked for democratization in Spain pop up again in 1989
in terms of comparisons, differences, similarities.

Eastern Europe
Three main interpretations in explaining post-communist transitions in Eastern Europe:
1) Through the communist inheritance, its influence on post-communism.
2) Explaining post-communist transition in terms of democratization (of institutions,
of administration, of executives, of the decision making, of legislatives, locals,
central governments).
3) Focus on the actors (elites) and their decisions.
Political scientists strive to offer coherent theoretical explanations and perspectives on
the events of 1989, how to conceptualize what was going on.
Transition = change from something to something else (evolutionary: from
authoritarianism / totalitarianism to democracy)

Is the destination automatically democracy?

How can we know we reached the destination?
How can we measure the progress?
What if this transition is a regime in itself? – in none of the cases was transition rapid

For many, the changes in 1989 came by surprise. Practically nobody in the Eastern Block
was sure that this would happen and they did not know when it would. Optimism was the
first reaction. A number of political scholars believed in the rapid and radical regime
changes, for instance Francis Fukuyama. But very slowly, optimism became pessimism
because post-communism quickly became difficult to understand and this is why political
scientists and politicians as well turned pessimistic.
Post-communism proved to be rather unintelligible for scholars – some even admitted
their incapacity to understand the change. Reasons:
- the regime left behind was not clear
- a number of economic, social and cultural inheritances
- a comparison was missing
- post-communism was too diverse
- events were too rapid, while the political science vocabulary was not that flexible
and needed to be revisited
- Most of the political science classical concepts turned to be practically useless
(e.g. left and right)
- Post-communism in Eastern Europe led to questioning the very theory of
conditions necessary for democracy: what is a democracy and what are the
conditions that lead to it?
A number of solutions and answers were given as to how to understand 1989 and post-
communism.
Four possible solutions, given by political scientists as to how to understand 1989 and
post-communism (The Big Transformations):

1) Was there really a revolution or not?

 A revolution = an abrupt and rapid regime change, most often violent, with
popular support and a more or less coherent theoretical program.
The Big Transformations of 1989 were not revolutions, but restorations (“nothing
new under the sun”). Habermas published an article in 1990, “The Rectifying
Revolution” – states would come back to the interwar regimes. For Habermas,
1989 brought no theoretical innovation. It is, on the one hand, the return to
interwar regime and, on the other hand, the expansions of the Western type of
democracy – Eastern European countries were ready to join Western liberal
democracy. The general idea behind such interpretations is that 89 and post-
communism do not mean the invention of a new regime or a new type of society,
but a return to a past destroyed by communism. Another scholar that agreed was
Francois Furet.
A new view was given by Timothy Garton Ash who coined the term “refolution”
(from reforms that came from above as answers to a revolutionary pressure from
below). The ideas expressed in 1989 are not new.
German scholar Claus Offe admits that ‘89 was a surprise but he does not say
that ’89 was a classical revolution. He says that the events of 1989 were guided
by individuals and their discoveries of the moment – admission of an element of
innovation. However, he says, ’89 lacked an elaborated theoretical position, a
revolutionary theory. 1989 had no historical model to be compared with.
According to Offe, what is specific to Eastern European transitions is that the
three political areas are simultaneous – the Dilemma of Simultaneity – and this is
what gives 1989 its innovative aspect. In that sense, Eastern European
transformations were highly unpredictable. The three political areas (levels) were:
o the decision as to who we are as political communities (political &
ideological & ethnic identities, territories);
o the decisions as to the rules, procedures, rights, institutions to be
established – what type of regime do we want?
o the distribution of political power and economic resources
In Offe’s words, there was an unprecedented load (burden) of simultaneous
decision-making on all these three levels, with no historical model to follow; the
Eastern European countries did not have a foreign occupation, a victorious power
to impose its rule, as did Germany at the end of the WWII.
The simultaneity of the three issues is so problematic because of the quantity of
these decision, their novelty and lack of experience towards them, incompatibility
between levels.
Offe - Varietis of transition – chapter Capitalism by democratic design

2) 1989 was no revolution in the classic meaning of the term, but an innovation in
many regards, original events, and therefore post-89 invites scholars to re-
evaluate our conception of democracy as such.
British scholar Ralph Dahrendorf – 1996 – Reflections on the revolutions in Europe.
East European states got rid of communism in order to embrace an open society.
However, 89 remains a trip to the uncertain future. Possible scenarios are there
for the future, but what is certain is that there’s an institutional framework that
will allow change without violence. He was rather contradicted quite soon by the
Yugoslav space.
The general idea behind these answers is that, confronted with 1989 and post-
communism, political scientists should analyze the contact between ideas from
Western Europe with the realities of Eastern European political communities and
the processes through which classical concepts of political science transform in
their search for new answers to old questions.
Is the Western type of democracy the automatic model to be considered?
New conceptualization is required.

3) The Black and White perspective

Transition between two opposed regimes (communism – democracy) but under a
very unsophisticated interpretation: the black regime is left behind and there is a
rapid transition to the white one (capitalist liberal democracy).
 Geoffrey Sachs (neoliberal economist) published a series of articles 1990, arguing
that if good economic capitalist reforms are implemented, then automatically
without any doubt, transition will be successful. The free competitive market
means the rebirth of initiative and this could lead only to good results and it will
bring along freedom in general (social, economic etc). The motto is “the sooner
the economic reforms are implemented, the more rapid the democratic regime
will arrive.”
Adam Przeworski gives arguments against this neoliberal vision on transition in
his book published in 1991, Democracy and market economy. The general
argument is that the shock of the market-oriented reforms is negative for
consolidating democracy in Eastern Europe. Therefore, there is need for social
policies to accompany the economic reforms.
We need to ask four main questions:
o What types of democratic institutions are most likely to last?
o What type of economic system will be able to generate economic growth
with equitable distribution of welfare?
o What are the political conditions for the efficient functioning of economic
growth?
o What the economic conditions necessary for consolidating democracy?
Having these questions as starting points, he gives counter-arguments to
neoliberals:
 Large scale changes are difficult to handle and large scale changes
have side-effects (the market and its dynamic is spontaneous, it
self-regulates – the state creates opportunities and interfere in the
redistribution of resources)
 We cannot rely solely on the rules of the free economy, because it
has social side-effects (poverty, unemployment); there has to be a
concern for welfare.
 Consolidation of democratic regimes needs economical welfare.
 Abrupt economic reforms have too high social costs
(unemployment, poverty), which is a threat for democracy
Populism – extremist and rather unpopular ideologies; a populist leader is a leader
that has an ideological view, charisma and turns to the people and promises a lot
of things; he/she does not need the institutions.
Political transition is simultaneous with economic transition. Reforms in both areas
are simultaneous.

4) The Path-dependency Theory

Ken Jowitt underlines that the legacies of the communist regime make transition
in Eastern Europe extremely difficult, dependent on the communist regime.
These inheritances are an impediment for democratic consolidation. Real
democratic institutions are impossible to implement – the “post-communist
nightmare”, referring precisely to very vivid negative inheritances from the
communist regime. Democracy needs decades to consolidate in such a context.
Democratic regimes are unlikely to appear in a context dominated by the Eastern
European political culture negatively influenced by communist regimes – ethnic
suspicions and tensions, weak political institutions, economic and political
oligarchies, absence of civic virtues, low-level tolerance, racism, distrust in
institutions and in decision-making and, implicitly, democracy can only work
within a specific social and cultural setting that forms in time, over centuries.
How can be democracy exported outside its setting of birth (Western Europe).

TO READ:
Schopflin (less pessimistic than Ken Jowitt)