Democratization of Eastern Europe
Introduction to EE as a Unit of Study

Based on Roskin, Michael G.  The Rebirth of East Europe.  4^th Ed.  Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Prentice-Hall. 

“The rebirth of East Europe was inevitable but unpredictable”

 
Taking predictability first

Not really unpredictable

Just not predicted by most political scientists

Or area specialists

Study of E Europe had been purview of “sovietologists” and area specialists

Assumed stability, impermeability of Soviet regimes to change

Why inevitable?

Note on the assumed “direction” of the change

Several times, Roskin writes things like

“East Europe would rejoin Europe and move quickly up to West European levels of prosperity and democracy” (1)

Emblematic of “modernization theory” which assumes that Western model is the only one

The only destination for developing countries

Should we expect E Europe to be a replica of the W? 

This theoretical lens, or Western-centric view of things causes him to see E Europe as the West must have been in the 1950s

True, that one often feels as if one had traveled back in time when one is in E Europe

But is this really accurate?

Is it the case that E Europe is simply lagging behind the West, backward?

Note:  he says that it was not only Communism that created this lag; that E Europe was a backward place before it was imposed on the region

This creates possibility for an alternative view

That E Europe is not just lagging, always has been, but will catch up to the inevitable model of the West

But that perhaps E Europe is qualitatively, i.e., fundamentally

culturally

politically

different from W

Something Other

So we have two hypothesis that will be with us through out the course

1.  That there is only One Europe

one European model, history, set of political institutions

from which E Europe was forcibly isolated

removed

kept apart

this view would see Communism as an aberration, a deviation from W tradition, political civilization

OR

2.  That there are and always have been two Europes

one Western, liberal, open, modern

and

one Eastern, illiberal, closed/suspect, backward

What makes E Europe a region, appropriate for study as a unit?

What makes it hang together?

1.  History of weak states

2. Empire

lasted longer

part of Austro-Hungarian (Hapsburg), Ottoman (Turks), Prussian (NE German), or Russian empires

3.  Later to form into Nation-States

4.   Nationalism

national identity primary

age of nationalism came later to region than to W Europe

5.  All except Czechoslovakia flunked their first experiments with democracy

most during interwar period

populismà fascism, dictatorship

6.  Crushed in WWII

endured Nazi occupation and Red Army “liberation”

7. Stalinization/E European satellite system

(except for Yugoslavia)

puppet states to Soviet Union

secret police

8.  no legitimacy with population

stayed in power by threat of force by USSR

WEAK regimes, not strong ones

9. poor performing economies

increased popular discontent

10. struggle between hardliners

gerontocracy

younger reformers

11.  Gorbachev

12. overwhelming victories by opposition (except Romania,Bulgaria)

13.  split, splintering of opposition

reinvention of communists as “social democrats”

14.  right-left alteration of power

Chpt. 1 Caught between Empires

Poor geography

      Military invasion, trade

Poor leadership (and aggressive neighbors)

Ethnicity

Roskin defines by language (discuss other indices)

Slavic groups

N - Rus

W – Poles, Czechs, Slovaks

       
S – Slovenes, Croats, Serbs

SE Bulgarian – mixed with Asian group Bulgars

Others –

Hungarians

Baltics

Religion - Historically

Catholic – Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Slovaks, W Ukrainians, Slovenes, Croats

Protestant – Estonians, Latvians, Prussians, Czechs

Eastern Rite Christianity – Russians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, Belorussians

Atheism – Czechs, Russians, some in all

*Weak States

Western Europe

Economically,

Increased trade (better geography for this and exploration)

Exploration, conquest, colonialism

Leads to great wealth

Monarchies shift to absolutism

Force erosion of local loyalties

Loyalty to crown, “nation”

Growth of middle class

Creates political pressure for democratization

E Europe, on other hand,

Historically, weak states

Parts of shifting empires

State weakness continues through communism

Today? 

Are strong states likely to emerge?

What conditions today enhance state power in EE?

What conditions mitigate against it?

Four Empires

Ottoman

http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/maps/declinemap.gif

SE Europe – Balkans, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, laid siege to Vienna twice

Politically, loosely confederated

Political autonomy in milyet system

Religious toleration

Habsburg, later Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy

http://www.hapsburg.com/historic/map-ahe.jpg

Austria, Hungary, Bohemia (Czech), Slovakia, Croatia, s. Poland, W. Ukraine

Didn’t assimilate groups so national loyalties persisted

Allowed some cultural autonomy, language rights, education

Even some political participation, self-governance in Galicia (curia system)

Prussian

http://www.culturalresources.com/images/maps/PrussiaABbig.jpg

NE Germany, N and NW Poland, E Prussia (Russia today)

Germanization, Poles disposed of land, not allowed education in Polish, underground education, cultural continuity through Church

Tsarist Russian

http://www.wall-maps.com/Classroom/HISTORY/World/ExpansionOfRussianEmpire187.gif

Russification, no cultural/linguistic rights

Little economic/social modernization

Feudal economic, political, social structures

WWI
Begins in East Europe

Serbs assassinate Austrian (Habsburg) Archduke Ferdinand

Austrians invade; Russians back the Serbs

Versailles, Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points

3 pertain to EE

Autonomy for Austro-Hungarian peoples

Independence of Balkan states, Romania, Bulgaria

Reestablishment of Polish state