Historical Background of the Political Instability of Balkan Region - Essay Example

Introduction The socio political transformation of the is significantly influenced by series of internal and external factors comprising of various elements, social equations, mechanism processes and empirical compulsions. History is witness to the evolving environment of societal norms that has undergone tremendous change in the past, especially in the late nineteenth and twentieth century. Charles Tilly (2001), eminent political analyst, explicitly argues that the process of democratization is inherent in the multidimensional and multifaceted interaction of the masses with the environmental factors that have significant impact and which are capable of influencing any future recourse to the formation of a new political equation. Indeed, increasing democratization of Eastern and central European states into presidential regimes is an exemplary example of the dynamics of evolving society and the reorganization of political blueprint that have laid the foundation of democratization. Historical aspect The historical background of the political instability of Balkan region, in the last hundred years, aided and abetted the cause and consequences of the recent wars. Before the World War I, greater part of Balkan region was ruled by large empires. Serbia and Bosnia was under the rule of Ottoman Turks and greater part of Croatia was dominated Austria-Hungary jointly. Serbia became the first Slavic region to revolt against the bad administration and looked at Russia for military support. Though the Turks suppressed the uprising, they realized that further discontent among the Serbs may influence Russia to give support so in 1829, they gave more autonomy to them. The autonomous status provided to Serbia, made it more politically ambitious and it had its eyes on Croatia and Bosnia so that it could gain access to sea route and thereby become economically independent. WWI was all about power and territorial gain and had involved almost all the political powers including Bulgaria, Greece etc. By the end of WWI, ‘Kingdom of Serbs, Croat and Slovenes’ was created which included Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo, and Macedonia. The Balkan region was greatly influenced by the communist Russians whose economic dependency played vital role in their political alignment. During and after WWII, under the influence of USSR, Balkan region consolidated into strong communist states to counter the Allied forces led by America, Britain and France. The disintegration of USSR and emergence of Boris Yeltsin as the popular leader of new Russia can broadly be described as ‘the history of the relationship between Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev during the final years of the Soviet Union is largely the story of the collapse of the Soviet state’ (Zlotnik, 2003). Thus, disintegration of USSR and unification of Germany acted as catalyst for Baltic States to increasing opt for political realignment with European Union, leading to democratization of Eastern European states. Democratization process and Eastern European states Democratic process is renowned for its freedom of expression and the power of the people. Indeed, the political instability of the Central and Eastern European states comprising of roughly 19 states was faced with huge challenges of survival, especially after the disintegration of USSR. The 1985-1991 periods had become critical period that saw the civil society under go the trauma and uncertainties of the imminent collapse of communism. The political reforms in the former communist states of Baltic region were imperative for myriad of reasons that had wide economic and political ramifications. While the countries that embraced democracy were able to stabilize their political economy, the states of the former Soviet Union experienced longer period of low economic output and protracted period of unrest. The regional politics and ethnic unrest in Eastern Europe dominated the political arena. After the collapse of communism and introduction of Presidential Regime in Russia, the Eastern European States also increasingly followed the democratization process with the Presidential Regimes. The various elements of mechanisms like the external environment that affect social conditioning and values of the people become major factors that impact their political leaning and social outcome. The intricacies of evolution and changes that occur within a society involve collective decision and public participation that provoke a constructive political and ideological transformation in the society, paving way for democratic values. Handelman (2006) defines democratization as the process when the ‘authoritarian regime’ shows signs of collapsing or of negotiating a way to de-centralize power and ends in the formation of a government derived by the popular votes. Inglehart and Welzel (2009) argue that democratization process is significantly influenced by modernization that is accompanied by socio cultural transition in the long term. It promotes political participation and democratic values within the various socio-political institutions. Rummel (2006) contends that democracy cannot sustain in an environment of poverty and inequality and that the environment must foster ‘willingness to negotiate, to compromise, to accommodate, and to lose’. These issues and factors are important consideration for the democratization of Eastern European countries and become decisive aspects of their democratic format. Scholars have also asserted that demand for democratization was stronger in the countries where the civil society was active than the countries with weak social movement. ‘The patterns of the collapse of the edifice of communism varied greatly: in some countries the institutions of democracy were negotiated between organized opposition and the state, in others the members of the old elite have imposed the new institutions on a weak civil society, in still others the old regime capitulated and the new institutions could be created by disregarding the demands of the old elite’ (Bruszt and Stark, 1992). Thus, with the collapse of communism, the association of citizens in the active civil society became decisive factors in the democratization process in the Easter Europe. Poland is a case in point where the labor solidarity became the torch bearer for democratization. The trade union of Poland was active advocate of socialism and was vociferous in their opposition to the communist policies. Irrespective of the outcome, the shift from the totalitarian regime to democracy in the Easter Europe is critical to the development of civil society for three main reasons: economic independence and need for free market; political stability; and socio-cultural development of the society. Rationale of political parties In a democratic setup, the political parties promote collective ideology, representing the society. ‘the political parties created democracy and modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the political parties’ (1942). Michael Johnston (2005) believes that political parties are ‘essential agents of the kind of competition, organization, mobilization, and accountability that enliven democracy and ingrain it into a nation’s daily life… it is rather to empower individuals, groups, and parties as effective political participants, both encouraging and enabling them to act in ways that make politics work for them’. Thus the basic objective of political parties in democracy is to promote and create platform for democratic representation of mass ideology where freedom of expression and participatory approach becomes fundamental principle. According to political analysts the rationale for political parties is that it reduces transaction costs and solve collective action problems primarily through creation of ‘brand’ that exemplifies political ideologies and applies across the political arena (Cox & Cubbins, 1993; Aldrich, 1995); Jones & Hudson, 1998; Whitman, 1995). Various scholars also argue that party candidates use their party’s ‘brand name’ for strategic voting and easier access to information (Kiewiet & Cubbins 1991; Lupia & Cubbins, 1994). The party’s brand name also gives more confidence to the voters in making more informed choice about how the party candidate would behave once elected. The accountability of party members and party electorate candidate becomes vital factor for them to act in the wider interests of the masses. Hence, once the party’s credibility is established through political leadership, the individual candidate becomes irrelevant as against the broader context of the party’s election agenda and party manifesto. Indeed, the parties have now become desirable institutes for democracy and lend legitimacy to the candidate. Ingrid Van Biezen (2004) says that ‘have now become firmly rooted in the established democracies and have rapidly acquired relevance in more recently established democracies in Eastern Europe and elsewhere in the world, to the point that they are widely seen as a sine qua non for the organization of the modern democratic polity and for the expression of political pluralism’. The transformation from the authoritarian to the democratic government necessitates reforms and compulsions that make it imperative for the Eastern European states to embrace the widely acceptable norms of part based democratic processes. Muller (2000) asserts that ‘European democracies are not only parliamentary democracies but also party democracies’ Need to transform towards presidential regime Power sharing and autonomy are two major issues within the democratization process. The democratization process and the fundamental of political parties largely obliterate the individual importance of the leaders and equate them with party ideologies and programs that represent the collective interests of the masses. The dominant role of political party in the democratic setup facilitates collective decision making that promotes and provides the necessary confidence building amongst the public and help establish credibility. The democratization of Eastern European countries vis-à-vis increased number of presidential regimes in Europe has not come as big surprise primarily because of the past elitists’ rule that was linked to communism and tilted heavily towards authoritarian rule. Once the communism in USSR was formally disintegrated and Presidential democracy was favoured by the new rulers of Russia, the peripheral countries and Balkan states became vulnerable to the attraction of the Western European Union confederates. The economic dependency of the Eastern European countries and the governance based on the principles of communism were the major factors that bound the EEC to the communist belt. The collapse of communists’ power gave them the impetus to move towards more liberal and capitalistic economy that would greatly facilitate their economic independence and development. Most of the EEC members had weak civil society and therefore it became easy for the elitists to grab the power in the new political transformation of the state. Presidential regimes are easier options of introducing democratization and it became simple for the elitists to form political party and project their leader as their party’s candidate. The political transformation of the new EEC was therefore, painless. Linz (1990) says that in Presidential regime ‘an executive with considerable constitutional powers-generally including full control of the composition of the cabinet and administration-is directly elected by the people for a fixed term and is independent of parliamentary votes of confidence. He is not only the holder of executive power but also the symbolic head of state and can be removed between elections only by the drastic step of impeachment’. The presidential regime hugely supports politics of personality and hence became the most sought after democratic pattern within the emerging new entities of Eastern Europe. The Eastern European countries were largely homogenous because their break-up was broadly based on ethnic diversity. The presidential system works best for the countries which are characterize by relatively homogenous society. Since the president is hugely empowered person, elected with popular votes and the houses or parliamentary members are also publicly elected members, the polarity of votes during conflict of opinion may create embarrassing situation not only for the president but also for the state. Social pattern of EEC is relatively homogenous and therefore, they can easily adopt Presidential type of democracy within their political evolution, in the post communist era. The presidential regime, being of fixed duration also provides the state with the inbuilt stability of rule of law as against the parliamentary democracy where the incumbent head can be removed at any time by the parliament. It is also true that the president is the open and declared party candidate who would be taking over as the head of the state after election. Hence, presidential candidate is often the most deserving member of the party who has popular support of the public. This is not true of the parliamentary regime where the head of the state is chosen behind the screen and may not have public support. The late eighties and early nineties saw the rapid increase of EU membership by the Eastern European countries primarily because it offered geo-political, socio-cultural and economic benefits to early reformers. At the same time, the membership also brought them under he umbrella of EU protection for the weak state (Hoffman & Keohane, 1993; Keohane, 1993). EU delivers these imperatives through well defined process of ‘asymmetric interdependence, enforcement, and meritocracy’ (Moravcsik & Vachudova, 2003). It monitors the progress on the conditionality through annual reports and major treaty negotiation (ibid, p171). The huge financial and social security offered by European Union became the key reason for the presidential regimes of the Eastern European countries. The rogue countries like Serbia, Croatia, Romania, Slovakia etc. who have repeatedly flouted the rules of the law and undermine the democratic values have also realized the vast benefits of being the members of EU. Therefore, despite political aberrations, they are made to tow the EU laws and work within the EU defined parameters. The liberalized economy and democratic pattern go a long way in strengthening the democratization of the new EEC member. Conclusion The presidential regime offers the elitists with huge opportunities of maintaining their power lobby in the post communist era. The sweeping power of president and weak social movement would greatly facilitate the vested interests of the political actors in the fast transforming political scenario of the Eastern European countries who are increasing moving towards reforms. Indeed, it would be correct to say that with a strong president, his cabinet is less likely to have strong ministers. The president would therefore, be able to use or misuse his power with ease. These are few of the main reasons that EEC democratization has greatly increased the number of presidential regimes in Europe. (2253) Reference Aldrich, J.A., 1995. Why parties? Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cox, G.W.&McCubbins,M.D., 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press. Handelman, Howard. (2006). The Challenge of Third World Development. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Hoffmann, Stanley and Robert O. Keohane., 1993. “Conclusions: Structure, Strategy, and Institutional Roles” In After the Cold War: International Institutions and States Strategiesin Europe, 1989-91, edited by Robert O. Keohane, Joseph S. Nye and Stanley Hoffmann, pp. 381-404. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Inglehart Ronald and Christian Welzel., 2009. How Development Leads to Democracy? What We Know About Modernization. Foreign Affairs 88.2, 33-48. Johnston, Michael., 2005. Political Parties and Democracy in Theoretical And Practical Perspectives. Available at: http://www.ndi.org/files/1949_polpart_johnston_110105.pdf [Accessed 18 January, 2009]. Kiewiet, R D. and McCubbins, M D., 1991. The logic of delegation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. P39 Linz, Juan J., 1990. The Perils of Presidentialism. Journal of Democracy, 1/1, 51-69. Keohane, Robert O., 1993. “Institutional Theory and the Realist Challenge after the Cold War.” In Neorealism and Neoliberalism, edited by David Baldwin, pp. 269-300. New York: Columbia University Press. Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye., 1977. Power and Interdependence. Boston: Little Brown. Lupia, A. and McCubbins, M.D., 1994. Learning from oversight: Fire alarms and police patrols reconstructed. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 10: 96–125. Müller, Wolfgang C., 2000. Political Parties in Parliamentary Democracies: Making Delegation and Accountability Work. European Journal of Political Research, 37, 309–333. Moravcsik, Andrew., 1998. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Moravcsik, Andrew and Vachudova, Milada Anna., 2003. National Interests, State Power and EU Enlargement. East European Politics and Societies 17,1: 42-57. Rummel, R.J., 2006. “Democratization,” In William Vogele and Roger Powers, Protest, Power, and Change: An Encyclopedia of Nonviolence Action From Act-up to Women’s Suffrage. Hamden, CT: Garland Publishing, 1996. Available at: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DEMOC.HTM [Accessed 18 January, 2010]. Schattschneider, E.E., 1942. Party Government. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Jones, P. & Hudson, J., 1998. The role of political parties: An analysis based on transaction costs. Public Choice 94: 175–189. Van Biezen, Ingrid. (2004). How Political Parties Shape Democracy. UC Irvine: Center for the Study of Democracy. Available at: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/17p1m0dx [Accessed 18 January, 2009]. Wittman, D.A., 1995. The myth of democratic failure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Read More