The EU’s Conditionality Strategy: its Development before and after the Fall of Communism

  • Geoffrey Pridham


The ‘triumph of democracy’ is a contested term when applied to the changed global environment from the early 1990s, suggesting a somewhat simplistic and arrogant view of events; but in one way it is perhaps applicable. The undoubted growth in democracy promotion (DP) and democratic conditionality (DC) in this recent and current period underlines the priority now accorded to that area. This is evident when looking at the increase in support for democracy through non-governmental organisation (NGO) activity, the greater emphasis on political conditions on the part of a wider range of international organisations and - significantly - the extent to which national governments now give attention to fostering new and fragile democracies and to insisting on democratic requirements in their aid programmes abroad.


Political Condition European Economic Community European Parliament Candidate Country North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. Schmitter and I. Brouwer, ‘Promozione e protezione della democrazia: il concetto, le richerche, la valutazione’, in Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, vol. 30, no. 2, August 2000, pp. 187–226.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Burneil (ed.), Democracy Assistance: International Cooperation for Democratisation (London: Frank Cass, 2000), own chapter 2, pp. 39ff.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    See, for instance, T. Carothers, Aiding Democracy Abroad: the Learning Curve (Washington: Carnegie Endowment, 1999); and the series of articles on debating democracy assistance in Journal of Democracy, vol. 10, no. 4, October 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Such costs may be equivalent to the entire monthly budget of a recipient political party (I. Lasota, ‘Sometimes less is more’, in Journal of Democracy, op. cit., p. 128). See also J. Wedel, Collision and Collusion: the Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe, updated edition (New York: Palgrave, 2001), for a critical assessment of fly-in fly-out aid consultants and how the conceptions underlying programmes may undermine their stated purpose.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    On this question, and an analytical attempt to tackle it, see D. Collier and S. Levitsky, ‘Democracy with adjectives: conceptual innovation in comparative research’, in World Politics, vol. 49, April 1997, pp. 430–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 8.
    M. Ottaway and T. Chung, ‘Toward a new paradigm’, in Journal of Democracy, vol. 10, no. 4, October 1999, p. 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 11.
    Quoted in J. Wedel, Collision and Collusion: the Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe (New York: Palgrave, 2001), p. 36.Google Scholar
  8. 12.
    P. Ortuño Anaya, ‘The EEC, the Franco regime and the Socialist group in the European Parliament, 1962–77’, in International Journal of Iberian Studies, vol. 14, no. 1, 2001, p. 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 13.
    J. Crespo MacLennan, Spain and the Process of European Integration, 1957–1985 (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000), p. 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 21.
    V. Coufoudakis, ‘The EEC and the “freezing” of the Greek Association, 1967–74’, in Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 16, no. 2, December 1977, pp. 117–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 32.
    G. Pridham, ‘The politics of the European Community, transnational networks and democratic transition in Southern Europe’, in G. Pridham (ed.), Encouraging Democracy: the International Context of Regime Transition in Southern Europe (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1991), p. 229.Google Scholar
  12. 38.
    D. Papadimitriou, ‘The EU’s strategy in the post-Communist Balkans’, Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, vol. 1, no. 3, September 2001, pp. 78–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 44.
    See European Commission, Enlargement 99: Composite Paper on the Commission Reports (Brussels, 1999), p. 21.Google Scholar
  14. 45.
    For example, H. Grabbe, A Partnership for Accession? The Implications of EU Conditionality for the Central and East European Applicants, Robert Schuman Centre, working paper RSC 99/12, European University Institute, San Domenico, 1999, p. 29.Google Scholar
  15. 46.
    Article by J. Goldston and R. Guglielmo of the Open Society Institute (OSI), ‘Minority groups must not be left to fall through the cracks of enlargement’, in European Voice, 31 October-7 November 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 48.
    This distinction and these terms are employed in the evaluation of the PHARE and TACIS programmes, see ISA Consult, European Institute, Sussex University and GJW Europe, Final Report: Evaluation of the PHARE and TACIS Democracy Programme, 1992–97 (Brighton and Hamburg: November 1997), pp. 13, 17.Google Scholar
  17. The terms are explained in M. Kaldor and I. Vejvoda (eds), Democratization in Central and Eastern Europe (London: Pinter, 1999), chapter 1. Mary Kaldor is one of the co-authors of the final report.Google Scholar
  18. 50.
    K. Smith, ‘The evolution and application of EU membership conditionality’, in M. Cremona (ed.), The Enlargement of the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 121–30.Google Scholar
  19. 51.
    G. Harris, ‘A European Parliament perspective’, in J. Gower and J. Redmond (eds), Enlarging the European Union: the Way Forward (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
  20. 75.
    M. Nowak, ‘Human rights “conditionally” in relation to entry to, and full participation in, the EU’, in P. Alston (ed.), The EU and Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 692.Google Scholar
  21. 79.
    V. Stan, ‘Influencing regime change in the Balkans: the role of external factors in the transition’, in G. Pridham and T. Gallagher (eds), Experimenting with Democracy: Regime Change in the Balkans (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 158–9.Google Scholar
  22. 84.
    European Commission, Enlargement 99: Commission Report on Slovakia (Brussels, 1999), pp. 11–17.Google Scholar
  23. 85.
    Czech Government, National Programme for the Preparation of the Czech Republic for Membership of the European Union (Prague, 1999), pp. 4–12.Google Scholar
  24. 86.
    European Commission, 2000 Regular Report on the Czech Republic’s Progress towards Accession (Brussels, 2000), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar
  25. 87.
    R. Rose, ‘Two cheers for democracy’, in The World Today, October 1998, pp. 252–5.Google Scholar
  26. 88.
    European Commission, Strategy Paper 2000 (Brussels, 2000), pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
  27. 91.
    Interview with Petr Zavadil, EU affairs correspondent of Lidové Noviny, Prague, March 2000.Google Scholar
  28. 93.
    European Commission, Enlargement 99: Commission Report on Hungary (Brussels, 1999), pp. 11–16.Google Scholar
  29. 95.
    European Commission, 2001 Regular Report on Hungary’s Progress towards Accession (Brussels, 2001), section 3.Google Scholar
  30. 98.
    Quoted in A. Duleba, ‘Democratic consolidation and the conflict over Slovak international alignment’, in S. Szomolányi and J. Gould, Slovakia: Problems of Democratic Consolidation (Bratislava: Slovak Political Science Association, 1997), pp. 216–17.Google Scholar
  31. 99.
    European Commission, Agenda 2000 (Brussels, 1997), report on Slovakia.Google Scholar
  32. 101.
    G. Pridham, ‘The European Union’s democratic conditionality and domestic politics in Slovakia: the Mečiar and Dzurinda governments compared’, in Europe-Asia Studies, March 2002, pp. 214–15.Google Scholar
  33. 103.
    European Commission, 2001 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress towards Accession (Brussels, 2001), p. 16.Google Scholar
  34. 104.
    European Commission, 2000 Regular Report on Slovakia’s Progress towards Accession (Brussels, 2000), p. 16.Google Scholar
  35. 106.
    Exceptions would include Václav Klaus whose admiration for the USA would suggest a sympathy for the American rather than European model of government. There has been some polemical debate in Hungary about forms of democracy, with Orbán as Prime Minister preferring a majoritarian over a consensual model (see A. Ágh, ‘Early democratic consolidation in Hungary and the Europeanisation of the Hungarian polity’, in G. Pridham and A. Ágh (eds), Prospects for Democratic Consolidation in East-Central Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), pp. 170–1. But in fact such debates remained within the West European framework if we regard British exceptionalism in its way of government as part of the EU scene. Otherwise, nationalist or populist leaders would be those most likely to present alternative models but they have tended to be unenlightening about this or tactically evasive, perhaps because the West European model has acquired received status and because usually EU accession has been popular. An answer as to intentions may be implied from their actions in power, for example, Sali Berisha’s autocratic practices in Albania, although that it not always a clear indicator. For example, it is doubtful that Vladimir Meciar had an alternative model in mind during the mid-1990s in Slovakia since his authoritarian tendencies were strongly driven by personalistic and sometimes ad hoc considerations.Google Scholar
  36. 108.
    C. Guicherd, ‘The EU and Belarus: from a zero to a positive sum game’, in A. Lewis (ed.), The EU and Belarus: between Moscow and Brussels (London: The Federal Trust, 2002), pp. 317–19.Google Scholar
  37. 109.
    M. Light, S. White and J. Lowenhardt, ‘A wider Europe: the view from Moscow’, in International Affairs, vol. 76, no. 1, January 2000, pp. 85–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Geoffrey Pridham 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey Pridham
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BristolUK

Personalised recommendations