Jan Kubik

Democracy in the Post-Communist World: An Unending Quest?

Fifteen years after regime change swept across the former Soviet bloc and contrary to the widely held hopes and expectations at that time, liberal democracy has emerged and taken root only in a small number of post-communist countries. In the majority of former communist states, political transformations have either lost their momentum and resulted in partially democratic systems or have been reversed and brought new authoritarian regimes. Hence, the fundamental puzzle of post-communist politics: why have some countries succeeded and others failed, totally or partially, in building and consolidating liberal democracy? Understanding and explaining this puzzle is a challenge for both scholars and policy makers. The IV General Assembly of the Club of Madrid held in Prague on 9-11 November 2005 brought together academic experts and political leaders to examine the unfolding trajectories and contrasting outcomes of democratization in Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe, as well as post-Soviet Central Asia. The Club of Madrid members and experts evaluated political lessons emerging from the region and reviewed reform and policy measures that have been relevant for promoting democracy and improving its quality in post-communist Europe and elsewhere. This special issue of EEPS presents nine articles that were originally commissioned as background papers for the Club of Madrid’s meeting. Our introduction, drawing on these articles and on the wide-ranging and insightful discussions that took place during the conference, is divided into five parts. The first offers a sketch of the “state of democracy” in postcommunist Europe and introduces our central question: what factors are key in explaining the success or failure of democracy in the post-communist world? The second part reviews some of

myThS anD realiTieS of Civil SoCieTy

Abstract:The reconstitution of civil society in the postcommunist world is misunderstood. Commonly diagnosed as weak and ineffective, really existing civil societies vary widely across the region. They differ from each other along several dimensions: constitution of public space, organizational composition, patterns of behavior, and normative orientations. Such differences result from dissimilar legacies of communism, diverging patterns of transformation, and different regime types. In Central Europe civil societies are generally as developed as in some countries of the West. In Central Asia incipient civic organizations are constrained in a manner resembling the pre-1989 Eastern Europe. In other parts of the former communist world, associational life has intensified despite many obstacles, but civil societies are politically impotent.

The role of decentralization and cultural revival in post-communist transformations: The case of Cieszyn Silesia, Poland

Abstract During the first four years of post-communist transformations (1989–1992), despite intense opposition, the basic features of the Balcerowicz economic plan remained unchanged. One main reason the plans opponents failed to defeat it was the decoupling of central and local political fields, which shielded local communes from the volatility of central politics where the criticisms of the governments economic policies were most eloquently articulated. Left partially to their own devices, some communes fared better under new conditions than others. The reasons for this differential economic revival are to be found in the differences of: (1) political cultures (“revolutionaries” versus “reformists”) revealed in voting patterns; (2) historical and cultural traditions, and (3) “civicness.” The empirical material to test these theses comes from the authors own fieldwork in Cieszyn Silesia, Poland.

Democracy in Poland: representation, participation, competition and accountability since 1989

interests (part VII) and various aspects of Italian society (part VIII). While some of the chapters in these two parts are among the most interesting and well-written in this handbook, the grouping of the topics is confusing. Next to chapters dedicated to public policies, the reader finds others about interest groups or political institutions; chapters on some endemic plagues of the Italian social (and political) life, such as corruption or criminal organisations, are mingled with others about movements, immigration, women in politics, press and cinema. The last part (IX) tackles the external relations of Italy and is divided into three chapters according to the main areas of interest of Italian foreign policy (Atlantic Alliance, Europe and Mediterranean countries). After reading such a great collection of contributions it is very difficult to formulate an overall evaluation. As a scholar interested in Italian politics, I am grateful to the editors for their attempt to address in detail so many aspects of it. Nevertheless, a general drawback negatively affects even those chapters and authors I found most convincing. It is fragmentation, ironically one of the drawbacks that also characterises the Italian political system. The chapters are too numerous and too short. On the one hand, given the large number of contributions, the same facts are often repeated from one chapter to another and coordination among contributions is not always satisfactory; on the other hand, the authors often only have the space to write short historical accounts. Even when the topics have triggered lively political and scientific debates or an abundant scholarly production, readers will not find summaries of the different positions in the literature or comparisons with other countries that could help them to better grasp the peculiarity of the Italian case. It is a pity in an editorial effort that is, nevertheless, highly commendable.

Response to Mark Kramer

It is a rare and rewarding opportunity for an author to receive a truly careful and thoughtful review written by a highly regarded scholar and, in addition, to be able to respond directly to reviewer’s observations and criticisms. We are fortunate to be in such a situation and we are very grateful to the journal’s editor for his kind offer and an effort to facilitate this exchange. Mark Kramer is very generous in his praise, stern in his criticism. While some of comments are well taken and will allow us to improve our conceptualizations, data collection techniques and analysis in possible further work on the subject of protest politics in postcommunist Eastern Europe, some other criticisms are misdirected or not well founded and call for corrections or rebuttal. Our response will come in two parts. First, we will address the issues that are the result of unfortunate editorial errors or, perhaps, our insufficiently clear presentation. Second, we will debate several specific points; here our disagreements with the review are more substantial. In this section we will also acknowledge Kramer’s critical points that should help us identify those weaknesses of our work that can be remedied in the future.

Illiberal Challenge to Liberal Democracy: The Case of Poland

The essay offers three sets of ideas. First, I define illiberal challenge and identify its three components (populism, organizational antipluralism, and ideological monism). Second, I discuss three causes of this challenge: economic, political, and cultural. Third, using this framework, I analyze the Polish case, concluding that the illiberal challenge in this country is considerable, but too weak to threaten liberal democracy. Important argument is that, in order to explain the staying power of illiberalism (or any other ideology), we need a theory that accounts for both the demand and supply sides of politics, particularly cultural politics.

Historical Memory and the End of Communism

In critiquing a recent book by Charity Scribner, Requiem for Communism, this article addresses fundamental questions about collective memories of Communism and the Soviet bloc: Why and how is the past remembered selectively? What happens when forgotten events are brought back to the fore of collective consciousness? What are the actual mechanisms of remembering? Who are the often invisible gatekeepers that direct the paths of our memories? Who are the influential rulers of memory attempting to shape our mnemonic repertoire? Scribners book indirectly touches on these issues, though not in a fully satisfactory way, especially with regard to working-class life under Communism. Although the book does have some strong points, it too often fails to take account of how people in the region (as opposed to leftist intellectuals in the West who knew Communism vicariously) experienced manual labor during the Communist era and how they remember it now.

Between Contextualization and Comparison A Thorny Relationship between East European Studies and Disciplinary “Mainstreams”

The essay introduces five principles of an approach that helps to combine context sensitivity with generalizing ambition necessary for any serious comparative work. It also offers a list of five areas where East European experts are or should be making major contributions to the “general” knowledge while remaining attentive to the “specificities” of their region. It emphasizes a dialogue among scholars of several theoretical and methodological persuasions. Such synthetic/syncretic studies—also in the study of power and politics—may and often do begin with the work of researchers who construct panoramic vistas (via large-N statistical work) and/or reconstruct mechanisms of individual decision making (via game theoretic models). Nevertheless, they cannot do without the work of those who delve into the details of social processes (via sociological analysis); those who decipher the intricacies of meaning creation, transmission, and decoding (via interpretive work); and those who are able to place all of this in proper historical contexts.

The Power of Symbols against the Symbols of Power: The Rise of Solidarity and the Fall of State Socialism in Poland.

Jan Kubik begins his study by demonstrating how the strategy for remodeling the national culture was implemented through extensive use of public ceremonies and displays of symbols by the Gierek regime (1970-80).