Joan DeBardeleben

Democratic dilemmas in EU multilevel governance: untangling the Gordian knot

This article discusses what implications the European Union’s (EU’s) multilevel structure has for its democratic legitimacy. It identifies three channels of democratic input in the EU – the European Parliament, national democratic processes influencing the Council of Ministers, and civil society participation in consultation procedures of the European Commission – and assesses them on the basis of a comprehensive set of criteria. The evaluation shows that the democratization of the EU faces three interlinked dilemmas. Most fundamentally, there is an incongruence in territorial scope between the issues requiring democratic control (increasingly European if not global) and the imagined communities necessary for the functioning of democratic procedures (primarily national). This ‘congruence dilemma’ intensifies contradictions between participation and deliberation, as well as between effectiveness and accountability in EU decision-making. Grand reforms that would solve these dilemmas once and for all are unlikely to be successful, but changes in the interplay of the three democratic channels – such as the disentanglement of political competencies, the formalization of inter-channel conciliation procedures, and the introduction of directly democratic mechanisms – promise to mitigate their negative effects.

The meaning of elections in transitional democracies: Evidence from Russia and Ukraine

Abstract The way in which citizens understand the meaning of elections may have a profound impact on the legitimation of transitional political systems. In post-Communist systems, this legitimation depends on the development of feelings that elections perform the functions of achieving accountability of elected officials, influencing policy direction of government and gaining personal benefits. Surveys in Russia and Ukraine at the time of elections in 1993 and 1994 show that those attaching such meanings to elections were most likely to display political interest and support system legitimacy, but that such people were a minority of the electorate. Popular acceptance of elections as legitimate democratic institutions in the future will depend on their ability to perform the functions of accountability, policy influence and personal benefit.

Fiscal Federalism and How Russians Vote

FROM ITS VERY BEGINNINGS in 1991 the evolution of the Russian federal system has seen repeated conflicts over the relative jurisdictions of the regional governments and the federal centre. The division of budgetary resources has been a particularly contentious issue. Numerous areas of joint jurisdiction between the federal government and the regions are laid out in the constitution; this overlap and the resulting lack of clarity have opened the door to negotiation and squabbling over who decides, who delivers and who pays in a range of policy areas. Should richer regions subsidise poorer regions, and to what extent? How much of tax revenue should each level of government control? And how should the distribution of resources between the centre and regions be determined? Decisions about these issues can significantly affect the lives of citizens, so they take on important political overtones, not only for elites but also for voters. All of these considerations provide prima facie support for the hypothesis that political considerations play a role in determining fiscal federal relations in Russia. But what sort of role do they play? And if they do play a role, does the public have a say, or is this simply another case of elite bargaining? Treisman has suggested that there was a clear link between regional voting patterns and political outcomes in the area of fiscal federalism in the first half of the 1990s. His research indicates that the federal government rewarded troublesome regions through more generous transfer payments. Treisman concludes that through this policy of ‘selective appeasement’ the pro-reform El’tsin forces were able not only to increase their own political support in subsequent elections but also to prevent the fragile federation from descending into increased conflict and finally disintegration. As Treisman observes, this process might well be self-limiting, since regional leaders might soon realise that opposition pays off. While the strategy might have worked well in the very first years of federal construction, its viability might decline over time and indeed the appeasement policy might become quite counterproductive for a central leadership seeking to regularise federal–regional relations. Using a somewhat different methodology, Popov found that ‘regions that voted for leaders and parties that challenged the federal government and that had more tensions with Moscow tended to get less funds from the centre in 1996–98’. These contrasting approaches attributed to the Russian government represent different models of political influence. In general, one could characterise the pattern Treisman has identified as one of political co-optation, intended to win over both oppositional regional authorities and their electorates to support the governing group in Moscow, while neutralising the appeal of opponents. This approach can be contrasted with political cronyism, which involves politicians rewarding their allies

Citizen Orientations to Political Parties in Russia

A combination of factors renders problematic the establishment of a competitive party system in Russia. Survey evidence from the period of the 1993 Duma election is used to examine the nature of attitudes to parties; these are found to be more supportive than might have been expected. The extent of public orientations to party is found to relate to interest in politics and belief in the meaningfulness of elections. General similarity in party orientation is found to exist among parties of different sizes and ideological stances. The importance of the development of public belief in political parties as a basis for democracy is emphasized.

The Reinstated Gubernatorial Elections in Russia: A Return to Open Politics?

Rescission of the direct popular election of Russia’s regional executives was interpreted by many observers as a cardinal indicator of the trend toward authoritarianism in Russia. In the wake of a series of vocal national protests against electoral fraud following the State Duma elections of December 2011, President Dmitrii Medvedev announced the reinstatement of gubernatorial elections, and a federal law was passed in May 2012 implementing this decision; the first gubernatorial elections under the new system took place in five Russian oblasts on 14 October 2012. This paper analyzes the campaigns and outcomes of these elections, as well as media and expert commentary surrounding them, with a goal of exploring whether the reinstitution of a gubernatorial electoral process presents a significant potential for renewed political competition or popular political mobilization at the regional level in Russia. Analysis of these early cases suggests that while these elections offer a real potential for genuine electoral contestation, the political establishment also exhibited the ability to apply a variety of formal and informal mechanisms to assure the desired outcome. Realization of the potential of gubernatorial elections to promote electoral competition would require a greater resolve and unity of opposition parties, including at the subregional level.

Revising the EU’s European Neighborhood Policy: The Eastern Partnership and Russia

As is well known, the European Union (EU) initially intended to include Russia in its European Neighborhood Policy (ENP). Russia’s rejection of this approach and insistence on a more equal “strategic partnership” set the EU’s eastern policy on a two-track mode.1 In other words, through the ENP one set of policies and priorities was established for non-member countries constituting the western (i.e., non-Central Asian) Soviet successor states, along with countries in the Mediterranean region and North Africa. In parallel, the EU continued to develop its relationship with Russia based on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), which went into effect in December 1997, augmented by the Four Common Spaces (Economic Space, Space of Freedom, Security and Justice, Space of External Security, Space of Research and Education) and the associated Roadmaps (see Commission, 2010). Since its initiation in 2004 ENP has undergone some revisions, particularly based on an assessment in late 2006, but most recently with the launch of the Eastern Partnership (EaP) policy in May 2009, directed at six of the European ENP countries (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine). At the same time, in the face of fits, delays, and starts, the EU-Russia relationship has continued on a different track, now at the stage of negotiating a new EU-Russia agreement to replace the 1997 PCA.

Optimists and Pessimists: The Ecology Debate in the USSR

Scientists and humanistic intellectuals have been in the vanguard of the environmental movement in the USSR. These individuals are in a strategic position both to understand the grave implications of ecological imbalance and to address those implications publicly and persuasively. Reading Marx, Engels, and Lenin provides no ready-made solutions to the approaching environmental crisis. Many Soviet scholars are strikingly aware of this theoretical lacuna in the ecological area and have set themselves the task of addressing the ethical, scientific, and practical problems that have arisen. Official Soviet doctrine does not claim to have resolved all scientific

Diverging views of EU-Russian borders: points of congruence and difference in EU and Russian analyses

ABSTRACT This article analyzes and compares EU and Russian approaches to the study of cross-border cooperation (CBC) after the Cold War, after examining the historical background and main theoretical approaches that have framed this literature. While EU literature has mirrored EU practice by drawing attention to more diverse and complex modes of cooperation, Russian analyses echo the official emphasis on mutual economic interactions with EU countries at the border areas. Western analyses of CBC are implicitly influenced by the works on ‘new regionalism’ and transnationalism. As a whole, the European scholars underline that cross-border projects have had limited impact; they point to various obstacles to cross-border economic development, resulting in only a limited effect on existing structural factors. In turn, Russian scholars acknowledge the minor interest of the Russian government in cross-border cooperation with the EU, stressing Russia’s priority to implement an independent foreign policy in Europe aimed at restoration of its own economic power. Operating from a constructivist theoretical framework, the authors conclude that the ideational apparatus used to analyze border cooperation is strongly conditioned by the political context in which scholars operate as well as by the larger geopolitical situation.

Conceptualizing Party Representation of Ethnic Minorities in Central and Eastern Europe A Typology of Ethnic Minority Parties

The political representation of ethnic minorities in the party systems of Central and Eastern European states remains understudied despite the consolidation of democracy in these countries following their accession to the EU. This paper asks what institutional factors influence the way ethnic minorities are represented in the party systems of Central and Eastern European states. It does so based on a comparison of ethnic minorities in two paired cases (Slovakia/Romania and Estonia/Latvia), each of which shows similarities in some regards but have different outcomes in terms of party representation. The paper specifically examines explanations for the diverse forms through which minorities are represented in these four countries with a focus on three distinct types: ethnic particularist minority parties, integrationist minority parties, and accommodative majority parties. We examine two institutional/political factors that influence specific minority party types: (1) electoral systems and (2) political strategies of the dominant ethnic elite. We argue that while electoral systems do play a role in explaining differences in the party representation of minorities, they become particularly important in the broader political institutional context that emerged in the first decade following the collapse of communism. The manner in which dominant ethnic political-elites approached minority representation in the early years of democratization is critical in explaining different types of party representation that ensued.

Backdrop to the Ukraine Crisis: The Revival of Normative Politics in Russia’s Relations with the EU?

The role of norms and values in the European Union’s relationship with Russia has been a contested issue in scholarly literature (Casier, 2013; Fawn, 2009; White, Light & McAllister, 2005; DeBardeleben, 2008). The debate over whether interests and values are mutually interdependent and what role each plays in the relationship is raised both in political and academic discussions (Stubb, 2014; Crotty, Hall & Ljubownikov, 2014). With a particular focus on the EU and Russia, this chapter examines the manner in which a clash of norms, alongside more widely discussed geopolitical interests, provides a backdrop for the conflict that arose between the EU and Russia over Ukraine in 2013–2014.