A Comparative Perspective on the State of Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe

The scholarship on Central and Eastern European politicsand societies is well established in the literature. Over the past two decades, scholars have addressed a variety of topics including the role of civil society in transition and democratic consolidation (Linz & Stepan 1996a, 1996b; Přibáň & Young 1999; Pridham 2001; Pollack & Wielgohs 2004); the process of institution-building and the functioning of institutions (Karp 1994; Zielonka 2001; Malova & Haughton 2002); the development of political parties and their contribution to democracy (Kitschelt 1992; De Waele 1999; Lewis 2001, 2008; Hough 2005; Deegan-Krause & Haughton 2010; Burnell & Gerrits 2010); the role of external actors in the process of consolidation of democracy, and in particular the role of the EU and the enlargement process (Papadimitriou 2002; Dimitrova 2004; Schimmelfennig & Sedelmeier 2005; Vachudova 2005; Epstein & Sedelmeier 2009; Morlino & Sadurski 2010; O'Brennan 2011); populist parties (Mudde 2007; De Waele & Pacześniak 2010; Pankowski 2011) and the ambiguous role of nationalism (Latawski 1994; Auer 2004); the problem of the rights of ethnic, linguistic, religious and national minorities (Taras 1998; Rechel 2009); the relationship between justice and politics (Anderson et al.2005; Coman & De Waele 2007; Coman 2009; Piana 2010); the construction of a market economy and the relationship between democracy and economic policies (Jeffries 1996; Stark & Bruszt 1998; Hasselman 2006; Myant & Drahokoupil 2010); political cultures (Pollack 2003; Klingemann 2008); the problems related to corruption (Smilov & Toplak 2007; Schmidt-Pfister & Moroff 2012); and the development of regionalisation and the role of local governments (Hughes et al.2004a, 2004b; Coulson & Campbell 2007).

Confronting methodologies and key assumptions supported by valuable empirical data, scholars endeavoured to understand different types and intensities of political change—including politics, policies and polity—as well as their democratisation, consolidation, Europeanisation and, more recently, quality of democracy. However, criticism with regard to inertia and retrenchment in the region has reappeared—or never disappeared. In a variety of fields, political scientists and observers have portrayed a sombre outcome of the simultaneous processes of democratisation and European integration (Sadurski 2004; Coman 2009; Pridham 2008; Haughton 2011). In this respect, many scholars have argued that the prospect of EU membership motivates the behaviour of Central and Eastern European governments (Cirtautas & Schimmelfennig 2010, p. 424). Yet, the number of instances of under-compliance increased. After enlargement, the Baltic States, Slovakia and Slovenia ‘continued to profess a government commitment to rapid euro adaptation’, while Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary began expressing Euroscepticism (Haughton 2011, p. 328; Coman 2013). The key to explaining this behaviour may lie in the fact that the governments from the region do not need to project themselves as ‘good Europeans’ (Haughton 2011, p. 327). Observers have been astonished to see that this reversal does not apply only to the ‘laggards’ of the accession process, but also to countries praised for the commitment of their governments to catching up with the requirements of the European Union. A variety of cases have been pointed out in the literature, including ‘the professionalization of the civil services in Slovakia and Poland’ (Pridham 2009, p. 53), the critical attitudes expressed by the Kaczynski government towards the European Union, the populist trends observed not only in Poland but also in Bulgaria and the Baltic States, and gloomy stories of corruption, and the ambiguous judicial reforms in Romania and Bulgaria (Schönfelder 2005; Coman 2009). New parties have emerged, radical nationalist parties have performed well in elections and anti-establishment populism has gained support. More recently, Hungary, one of the front-runners in building democracy and market economy before accession, made the headlines with Fidesz's attempts to adopt a new constitution and to reform the judiciary. In a variety of fields, the institutional and discursive change of the accession period was not followed during the post-accession period by institutional stability, but rather by instances of under-compliance.

Both the processes of change and their outcomes fuel the intellectual curiosity of researchers to understand these phenomena. In this respect, two research agendas dealing with the variety of outcomes in the region have been developed simultaneously. Both of them are fragmented and pluralist in terms of theoretical assumptions and methodologies. The first one is driven by comparative politics and deals with the question of the quality of democracy. The second is more focused on the dialectical relationship between Europeanisation and European integration (Coman & Crespy 2014) and examines how far Europeanisation has gone in the new member states of the EU and when does the EU make a difference (Haughton 2011).

On the one hand, the concept of quality of democracy has been introduced in the literature to clarify some open questions of the debate on democratic consolidation. Following early studies on transition (Rustow 1970; O'Donnell & Schmitter 1986; Huntington 1991), scholars became increasingly interested in analyses of the consolidation process (Linz & Stepan 1996a, 1996b; O'Donnell 1996; Schedler 1998) and, at the same time, in the early 1990s, the ‘forgotten dimension’ (Pridham 1991) of the role of external actors in democratisation processes was finally integrated within the framework of analysis. However, the spread of regimes deemed as democracies and the open problems of the process of transition and consolidation led some scholars to question the validity of the dominant ‘strategic’ paradigm on democratisation (Carothers 2002). The criticism of a theological conceptualisation of transition and consolidation (O'Donnell 1996) and the emergence of a grey zone between democracy and authoritarianism have resulted, on the one hand, in a revival of studies based on analysis of the role of structural factors to explain the difficulties in democratisation processes and, on the other hand, on the new research agenda on ‘hybrid regimes’ (Diamond 2002). In the same way, more recently, the differences within the democratic ‘genus’ led to the most recent field of inquiry, namely the quality of democracy (Morlino 2011). Perhaps the main reason for this evolution was the widespread feeling of discontent and alienation towards the functioning of democracy in established democracies, and the crisis and democratic malaise in the new ones.

On the other hand, the research agenda on Europeanisation in Central and Eastern Europe has been nourished both by specialists of the region and scholars of EU integration. In the pre-accession period and the accession stage, a wide range of structural reforms were passed, and new institutions were created in the new member states of the EU. Most of them failed to deliver change (Coman 2009; Haughton 2011, p. 325; Ozolina 2010). Studies conducted in a variety of fields reveal that there is a first-order change in the region under the influence of the EU, reflected by the incorporation at the domestic level of new norms and ideas as well as by the existence of new policy instruments and targets in line with European public policies. But this first stage—attested by several works and contributions—has not (yet) been followed by a more radical and profound Europeanisation or transformation. While there is a general consensus in the literature to explain this differential impact by the types of transitions and structural legacies, more recently a series of sceptical scholars of Europeanisation have examined in depth the strengths and weaknesses of the mechanisms and policy instruments used by the EU in order to promote change (Hughes et al.2004a, 2004b). This first generation of studies unveiled that in several policy fields the power of the EU and more specifically the effects of Europeanisation mechanisms have been overestimated. Debates concerning constitutional and judicial reform in Hungary reveal not only the duality between Europeanisation and European integration, but also the tensions and the contradictions between these two processes (Coman & Crespy 2014).

The aim of this collection of essays is to provide an overview of some fundamental questions related to the state of democracy and the intensity of Europeanisation in the region. Without following a common theoretical framework—because of the pluralist character of the two research agendas on quality of democracy and Europeanisation—and with an empirically-oriented approach, the contributors to this special issue address the following questions.

How can we explain the democratic crises in the new member states of the EU characterised by abuses of power and attempts to break the constraints of checks and balances and centralise the executive power? The question is crucial because it affects a fundamental aspect of the quality and stability of a democracy: the doctrine of accountability and control of power. Using the cases of Bulgaria, Poland and Slovakia, Luca Tomini's article provides an explanation that lies in understanding the complex paths and outcomes of democratic consolidation.

Quo vadis judicial reforms in Central and Eastern Europe? Starting from the assumption that there is vagueness concerning the outcomes of judicial reforms and a tendency to treat them as an ‘unresolved puzzle’, Ramona Coman's article examines the processes of change and the forms of inertia in this field. Two paths of reforms are identified through an analysis of the independence of the judiciary in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania and Bulgaria. The article displays not only the resistances to Europeanisation, but also the limitations of the European mechanisms of compliance and reveals the academic and political complexity of the topic under examination.

How capable are citizens in post-communist democracies of governing their countries? Are the opinions of Czech citizens stable and reasonable? As Andrew Roberts points out in his article on the Czech Republic, there has been some scepticism about whether post-communist citizens are prepared to rule their countries. More recent studies have painted a brighter picture. Based on data concerning foreign policy, social issues (such as abortion, the rights of homosexuals, the death penalty and euthanasia) and a variety of issues concerning domestic politics (including the structure of the economy, church restitutions, nuclear energy and direct presidential elections), the author concludes that public opinion in this country is ‘stable’ and ‘reasonable’.

Is there a participation bias in Central and Eastern Europe and, if so, how does this affect the functioning of democratic systems of these countries? Filip Kostelka compares the emerging trends in political participation to those observed in the established democracies of Western Europe. His findings reveal that post-communist citizens participate substantially less than their Western counterparts, and, contrary to some expectations, no convergence has been taking place. The author argues that the poor state of political participation therefore does not appear to seriously undermine the quality of the post-communist democratic process.