Recall what civil society is
public space between the official public and private life
within which autonomous and voluntary social organization takes place

Civil Society
 a pre-requisite for democracy
 why?

Or is it the other way around
 that civil society is the product of
 democracy?
 

Central/Eastern European pre-1989 experiences with civil society

Civil society in Leninist systems

Is the organization/development of civil society in post-Communist Europe dependent upon the development of civil society under the communist regimes?

Is the under-development of civil society one of the region’s most debilitating “Leninist legacies?” (Jowitt’s term”)

 
M. Steven Fish says no
 argues against linear/causal relationship between pre and post-communist civil society

More generally Fish critiques the pre-dominant theories of democratization

all based on shaky empirical grounds
 scanty, anecdotal evidence
 paucity of cases

Fish is asking
what explains democratization in EE and Eurasia?
what explains what countries succeed in becoming thriving, lasting democracies and which founder, backslide into authoritarianism, etc.?

 
Criticizes four types of explanations
 1) structural
 2) cultural
 3) rationalist new institutionalist
 4) procedural (“transitology”)

Structural Explanations
 (Huntington and Lipset)
 emphasize ethnic homogeneity, socio-economic development, human capital development
 
Cultural Explanations
 (Weberians: Janos, Hanson)
cultural legacies that vary according to geography
because dif countries belonged to different empires, have different religious affiliations
that are more or less conducive to democracy

*relatedly Kopstein and Reilly’s geographical contagion argument to explain post-Communist democratization

 
Rationalist new institutionalism
 (Aldrich, Weingast and Marshall)
 elites create institutions that reflect their interests (rational calculations to maximize their power)

Transitology
 (Schmitter and Karl, Rustow, Bunce)
 focus on political process
 “pacted” or negotiated transition
 revolution from above or below, etc.
 and sequence of events (democratization before liberalization or vice versa)
 

Fish’s Alternative Approach:
Political Constructivism
not to be confused with post-modern “social construction” critiques
rather, an approach that emphasizes
human agency
his three explanatory variables are all products of political struggle, choice and design

Explanatory variables:
  Dense civil societies
  Deconcentration of political power
  Economic reform
 

Success stories and failures explained by these three
successes:  Poland, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Mongolia

moderate/short term failures:  Slovakia (Meciar ‘94-98); Russia (superpresidency);

 failures: Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus
 

Dense civil societies, economic reform
 often seen as threats to democratization
 will unleash opposition, people hit hard economically will be enticed by authoritarians, nationalists, etc.

Fish proves otherwise
 Poland – economic nightmare, shock therapy, very dense civil society
but still strong support for liberal democracy

**successful deconcentration of political power important

Not simply a choice between presidentialism and parliamentarianism as often argued

Rather, cannot have superexecutive of any kind (President or PM)
comment here on Russia, Uzbekistan,

 
Fish argues that need dense civil society but also

“`constant flow of communication’ between the state and civil society that Durkheim regarded as `the gist of democracy’ by virtue of their ability to promote transparency and public accountability and engender habits of informed loyalty on the part of citizens of the state” (816)

**my work focuses on this
 building means of communication between
 the state and civil society

 chose Poland because its dense civil society
 was likely to thrive in post-period

 I call these linkages between the state and
organized civil society “institutional capital”
(e.g. fostering communication with NGOs, inviting NGOs into policymaking process)

 Regimes that develop the most institutional
capital have the most state capacity
 
They have infrastructural power (or power to) not despotic power (or power over)
 

Fish stresses that institutional capital is means of assuring accountability and capacity

**note: this is his stronger definition of democracy

more than just having elections, rotation of elites

Other key passages from Fish:
 The liberal fear that Poland’s relatively strong labor movement and generally dense civil society might inhibit economic reform and recovery has proved unjustified, as shown by Poland’s embrace fo the most radical liberalization program in the region and a half-decade of the highest growth rates in Europe (810).

 The key to democratization for the sturcturalist is to change underlying socioeconomic or cultural conditions; for the rationalist to create the right incentives for powerholders; for the transitologist, to craft appropriate political arrangements; and for the political constructivist, to deconcentrate and pluralize power in all major realms (state, society, economy) (811).

Note that Fish agrees with Brass that ethnic conflict is a result of elite manipulation
not, as democratization theorists have argued, the result of democratization unleashing buried, ancient hatreds.