6. Transitional Politics in East and Southeastern     Europe

Study

Chapter 6 applies the analytical framework outlined in chapter 5 to case studies of Russia, Ukraine, and the states of the former Yugoslavia. Three key questions are considered: First, can these societies achieve some degree consensus about their core values and general direction? Second, what type of political architecture or institutional structure will they adopt for their governments? Third, how will these societies identify and cultivate a cadre of political leaders?

The countries of Central and Southeastern Europe, unlike their Eastern European counterparts (see chapter 5), are not on an apparent path toward EU membership. The absence of EU influence in Russia, Ukraine, and the countries emerging from the former Yugoslavia forces these societies to confront the challenges of postcommunist transition by relying almost exclusively on their own internal dynamics and the historical legacies of their societies.

In Russia and Ukraine, society has produced a cadre of "born-again democrats," or leaders connected to the communist past who have worked within a poorly designed political architecture to replicate for their respective societies the key values of the former communist era: security and stability.

In Southeastern Europe, the countries emerging from the former Yugoslavia are case studies of societies mired in violent and coercive histories. Instead of working toward a value consensus for the future direction of society, these countries are stuck in a "backward-looking" political culture that uses history to justify intolerance and extreme nationalism.

The analysis of postcommunist transition in chapter 6 offers several thought-provoking conclusions. First, in sharp contrast to the political systems discussed in chapter 5, persistent instability in Russia, Ukraine, and the countries of the former Yugoslavia has meant that these societies have largely failed to recognize and confront the key challenges they face in the twenty-first century. Second, and perhaps most alarming, chapter 6 suggests that societies in Southeastern Europe may need to ignore the region's history to move forward to develop a constructive value consensus and direction for their countries. Finally, the chapter cautions readers not to equate transition from communism with transition to democracy.

Review Questions

After reading chapter 6, students should be able to answer the following questions:

  1. Explain why security and stability have emerged as the defining societal values in postcommunist Russia, rather than other potential values such as tolerance, individual freedom, and democracy.


  2. Describe the type of leadership cadre that society has produced in postcommunist Russia and Ukraine.


  3. Compare and contrast the political architecture (especially executive-legislative relations) that has emerged for governing the societies in postcommunist Russia and Ukraine.


  4. Explain why and how the lack of influence from the European Union has affected postcommunist transition in Russia and Ukraine.


  5. Why does chapter 6 suggest that societies in Southeastern Europe may need to ignore the region's history to move forward in developing a constructive value consensus that might provide direction for their countries?