![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article focuses on the evaluation of recent research on post-communist political regime diversity in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It offers a snapshot of the literature which looks for explanations for this diversity in four sets of factors: pre-communist and communist legacies, transitional institutional choices, political leadership, and foreign influence. The findings are based on the political evolution of three countries: Slovakia, Belarus, and Macedonia. They are representative for all post-communist countries both in terms of regime trajectory and regional location. The author concludes that post-communist political regime diversity can best be explained when the political leadership in general and the top politicians’ ideology, in particular, are placed at the centre of the analysis. This explanation correlates well with all types of post-communist regime, whether democracy, dictatorship, or intermediate regime. The other factors – legacies, institutional choices, and foreign influence – at best, may act only as reinforcing variables in some cases.
RÉSUMÉ
Cet article se concentre sur l’évaluation des recherches récentes sur la diversité du régime politique post-communiste en Europe de l’Est et l’ancienne Union soviétique. Il fournit un instantané de la littérature qui cherche des explications pour cette diversité dans quatre ensembles de facteurs : des héritages pré-communistes et communistes, des choix institutionnels transitionnels, la direction politique et l’influence étrangère. Les résultats sont fondés sur l’évolution politique de trois pays : la Slovaquie, la Biélorussie et la Macédoine. Ceux-ci sont représentatifs de tous les pays post-communistes en fonction non seulement de la trajectoire du régime mais aussi de la position régionale. L’auteur conclut que la diversité du régime politique post-communiste trouve la meilleure explication quand la direction politique, en général, et l’idéologie des personnages politiques principaux, en particulier, sont placées au centre de l’analyse. Cette explication correspond bien aux toutes sortes de régime post-communiste, qu’il soit démocratie, dictature ou régime intermédiaire. Les autres facteurs – héritages, choix institutionnels et influence étrangère – peuvent agir seulement de variables de renforcement dans certains cas.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. Mitropolitski, “Comprendre la diversité,” 123.
2. Kitschelt, “Accounting for Post-Communist,” 57–58.
3. Kopstein and Lichbach, Comparative Politics, 4.
4. The use of the Freedom House classification of post-communist countries is appropriate for this study, which employs a minimalist and procedural definition of political regimes, and a positivist epistemology and methodology.
5. Freedom House, “Methodology.”
6. Roeder, “The Rejection of Authoritarianism,” 11; Frye, “Presidents, Parliaments, and Democracy,” 81; Grzymala-Busse, “Authoritarian Determinants,” 415.
7. Polity IV Project.
8. A brief chronology of post-communist political development for each country is appended to this article.
9. Kitschelt, “Accounting for Post-Communist,” 57–58.
10. Jowitt, New World Disorder; Schopflin, Politics in Eastern Europe.
11. Brzezinski, “The Primacy of History,” 194.
12. Hanson, “The Leninist Legacy and,” 306; Hanson, “The Leninist Legacy, Institutional,” 235.
13. Kitschelt et al., Post-Communist Party Systems.
14. Ekiert, “Patterns of Postcommunist Transformation,” 89.
15. Grzymala-Busse, “Redeeming the Past,” 157.
16. Volgyes, “The Legacies of Communism,” 1; Volgyes, “The Economic Legacies,” 42; Curry, “The Sociological Legacies,” 55.
17. Bennich-Björkman, “The Cultural Roots,” 316.
18. Valkov, “Membership in Voluntary Organizations,” 1; Pop-Eleches and Tucker, “Associated with the Past?” 45.
19. Ekiert and Kubik, “The Legacies of 1989,” 46.
20. Ishiyama, “Historical Legacies,” 485.
21. Petrovic, The Democratic Transition.
22. Jensen and Skaaning, “Modernization, Ethnic Fractionalization,” 1117.
23. Fish and Kroenig, “Diversity, Conflict and Democracy,” 828.
24. Koinova, “Diasporas and Democratization,” 41.
25. Way and Levitsky, “The Dynamics of Autocratic,” 387.
26. Ackerman, The Future of Liberal; Shvetsova, “Institutions and Coalition-Building,” 55.
27. Linz, “The Perils of Presidentialism,” 51; Marples, Belarus, xii.
28. Hale, “Democracy or Autocracy,” 305; Hale, “Formal Constitutions,” 581.
29. Steinsdorff, “Incomplete State Building,” 201.
30. Brown, “From Democratization,” 209; Fish, “Putin’s Path,” 246.
31. Roeder, “Varieties of Post-Soviet,” 61.
32. Frye, “A Politics of Institutional,” 523.
33. Levintova, “Revisiting Russian and Polish,” 175.
34. Petrovic, “The Role of Geography,” 123.
35. Ganev, Preying on the State.
36. D’Anieri, “Explaining the Success,” 331.
37. Tudoroiu, “Rose, Orange, and Tulip,” 315.
38. Silitski, “Survival of the Fittest,” 339.
39. Vachudova, Europe Undivided; Pridham, “Rethinking Regime-Change Theory,” 54; Pridham, Designing Democracy; Levitsky and Way, “International Linkage and Democratization,” 20; Levitsky and Way, “Ties That Bind?” 519.
40. Kolarska-Bobinska, “The EU Accession,” 91; Grzymala-Busse and Abby, “Great Expectations,” 64.
41. Bideleux, “‘Europeanisation’ and the Limits,” 25; Raik, “EU Accession,” 567.
42. Gallagher, Theft of a Nation; Gallagher, Modern Romania.
43. Coricelli, “Democracy in the Post-Communist,” 82; Tudoroiu, “Structural Factors vs. Regime,” 236.
44. Bunce and Wolchik, “Favorable Conditions,” 5; Bunce and Wolchik, Defeating Authoritarian Leaders, 327.
45. Kuzio,“Civil Society,” 365.
46. McDonagh, “Is Democracy Promotion Effective,” 142; Pop-Eleches,“Between Historical Legacies,” 142.
47. Sasse, “Linkages and the Promotion,” 553.
48. Simão, “The Problematic Role,” 193.
49. Freedom House Organization, “Freedom in the World, Belarus”; “Freedom in the World, Slovakia”; “Nations in Transit 2015.”
50. See .
51. Ibid.
52. European Commission, “Development and Cooperation.”
53. Mitropolitski, “Comprendre la diversité,” 123.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Simeon Mitropolitski
Simeon Mitropolitski, PhD in Political Science (“The Role of European Union Integration in Post-Communist Democratization in Bulgaria and Macedonia”, Université de Montréal), teaches courses in political science and methodology at the University of Ottawa. His interests lie in post-communism studies, European Union integration, political culture, political theory, and interpretative qualitative methodology. He has published articles on those subjects in Democratic Theory; Canadian Slavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes; Politique et Sociétés; Region: Regional Studies of Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia; Humanicus; Études balkaniques; New Balkan Politics; Studia Politica; and Forum: Qualitative Social Research.