Advertisement

EU Enlargement, Democratisation and Domestic Politics in Post-Communist Europe: Patterns and Problems of Motivation

  • Geoffrey Pridham

Abstract

Attention now shifts to the other side in the interactive dynamics of EU accession, namely the domestic politics of candidate countries. As argued in Chapter 1, pressures from here may either help or hinder national governments in their pursuit of membership; and, these are best analysed by differentiating between levels of political systems in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The scope for such interactions is well summarised by an early text on European integration:

The [European] Community process is not confined to what takes place within the formal framework of the Community institutions. Rather it embraces a network of relationships and contacts among national policy-makers in the different member states, both directly through involvement in the Community arena and indirectly as that arena impinges on national policy processes. Consequently, the Community process … can be analysed only as the tip of a much larger iceberg formed by the domestic contexts that set constraints on each member government. In addition national policy-makers are caught up in other kinds of transnational activities including other international agencies and a variety of informal links both multilateral and bilateral. These arenas of discussion sometimes complement or reinforce the Community process, but on occasion may complicate or undermine it.1

Keywords

European Integration Political Elite National Sovereignty Domestic Politics Accession Country 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    H. Wallace, ‘National bulls in the Community china shop: the role of national governments in Community policy-making’, chapter 2 in H. Wallace, C. Webb and W. Wallace (eds), Policy Making in the European Community (London: John Wiley, 1977), pp. 33–4.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Bulmer, ‘Domestic politics and European Community policy making’, in B. Nelsen and A. Stubb (eds), The European Union: Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994), p. 144.Google Scholar
  3. 7.
    F. Roy Willis, France, Germany and the New Europe, 1945–1967 (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), pp. 125–6.Google Scholar
  4. 9.
    N. Kogan, The Politics of Italian Foreign Policy (London: Pall Mall Press, 1963), p. 136.Google Scholar
  5. 10.
    A. Chiti-Batelli, Dalle elezioni alia federazione europea? (Florence: Le Monnier, 1979), pp. 43–4.Google Scholar
  6. 11.
    P. Vannicelli, Italy, NATO and the European Community: the Interplay of Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), p. 22, for the argument that ‘in an unstable system with stalemating tendencies, frequent government crises and constant political manoeuvring within and among parties, exploitation of foreign policy for internal purposes is almost inevitable’.Google Scholar
  7. 12.
    G. Pridham, ‘Italy’, in C. and K. Twitchett (eds), Building Europe: Britain’s Partners in the EEC (London: Europa Publications, 1981), p. 88.Google Scholar
  8. 13.
    F. Attina, ‘Socialist parties and Italian foreign policy’, in W. Feld (ed.), The Foreign Policies of West European Socialist Parties (New York: Praeger, 1978), chapter 7.Google Scholar
  9. 15.
    This is not to say there were moments when the security imperative did not come to the fore, most notably in Portugal in 1975 when the transition there to democracy looked seriously threatened by internal developments, namely the challenge from the pro-Moscow Communist Party and the radical left military not to mention some reactionary circles. As a result, the pro-democracy parties united around the European option, while NATO felt intense concern over the Portugese situation and made contingency plans (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), pp. 227, 236–7.Google Scholar
  10. 17.
    K. Featherstone, ‘Socialist parties and the enlarged EC’, in T. Gallagher and A. Williams (eds), Southern European Socialism: Parties, Elections and the Challenge of Government (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989), pp. 250–1.Google Scholar
  11. 19.
    L. Tsoukalis, The European Community and its Mediterranean Enlargement (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981), p. 105. According to Carlos Westendorp, the Spanish government’s secretary-general for EC affairs, ‘Europe is synonymous with democracy, synonymous with modernisation and synonymous with the welfare state, which has a moral value in this part of the world; everyone has a desire to end isolation and a desire to modernise.’ President Eanes of Portugal was also quoted, as saying: ‘After entry into the EC, there will be a revolution in the mentality of the Portuguese people; our younger generation will be more in contact with different political and economic systems; in 15 years Portugal will be a differentt place’ (The Times, 23 December 1985).Google Scholar
  12. 20.
    On this, see D. Ethier, Economic Adjustment in New Democracies: Lessons from Southern Europe (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 22.
    See G. Moschonas, ‘The path of modernisation: PASOK and European integration’, in Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, vol. 3, no. 1, May 2001, pp. 11–24.Google Scholar
  14. 23.
    See S. Verney, ‘To be or not to be within the European Community: the party debate and democratic consolidation in Greece’, in G. Pridham (ed.), Securing Democracy: Political Parties and Democratic Consolidation in Southern Europe (London: Routledge, 1990), esp. pp. 209–10, 213–16.Google Scholar
  15. 27.
    Featherstone, in T. Gallagher and A. Williams (eds), Southern European Socialism, pp. 252–3. See also J. Brooks, ‘Mediteranean neo-democracies and the opinion-policy nexus’, in West European Politics, vol. 11, no. 3, July 1988, pp. 133–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 29.
    U. Kitzinger, Diplomacy and Persuasion: How Britain joined the Common Market (London: Thames and Hudson, 1973), p. 27. For a detailed discussion of this policy redirection, see M. Camps, Britain and the European Community, 1955–1963 (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), esp. chapters ix and x.Google Scholar
  17. 44.
    J. Wallat, ‘Czechsolovak/Czech foreign and security policy, 1989–1999’, in Perspectives: the Central European Review of International Affairs, vol. 17, winter 2001/2002, pp. 20–1.Google Scholar
  18. 46.
    This referred not only to his diction, for example, a stress on ‘national feeling’ and national identity, but also his sarcastic style when speaking about European unity and how far it should go, cf. analysis of Klaus’s view of integration in P. Bugge, Czech Perceptions of the Perspective of EU Membership: Havel vs. Klaus, EUI Working Paper, RSC No. 2000/10, European University Institute, San Domenico, 2000, pp. 25–31.Google Scholar
  19. 61.
    Economic Policy Institute, Sofia, and Centre for the Study of Democracy, Sofia, ‘Bulgaria and Romania’, in H. Tang (ed.), Winners and Losers of EU Integration: Policy Issues for Central and Eastern Europe (Washington: The World Bank, 2000), pp. 99–100.Google Scholar
  20. 65.
    In the Polish case, it was noted that negotiations from 1998 produced ‘a rapid transformation of perspectives’ and marked ‘a new stage in shaping opinions on integration on the part of politicians and society as a whole’ (E. Stadtmüller, ‘Polish perceptions of the European Union in the 1990s’, in K. Cordeil (ed.), Poland and the European Union (London: Routledge, 2000), p. 29.Google Scholar
  21. 67.
    E. Kukan, The Slovak Republic on its Way into the European Union (Bonn: Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung, Discussion Paper C40, 1999), p. 4.Google Scholar
  22. 70.
    D. Phinnemore, ‘Stuck in the “grey zone”? — fears and frustrations in Romania’s quest for EU membership’, in Ross, Perspectives on the Enlargement of the European Union (Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 166ff.Google Scholar
  23. 71.
    Cf. the comment of Mircea Geoana, Romanian foreign minister, that ‘in our relationships with the Western institutions, a servile attitude is not suited and it will not bring us any economic or political benefits’ (M. Geoana, ‘Debate on the future of Europe — implications for Romania’, in A. Nastase (ed.), Romania and the Future of Europe (Bucharest: Regia Autonoma Monitorul Oficial, 2001), pp. 51–2).Google Scholar
  24. 72.
    G. Pridham, ‘Romania and European Union accession: the domestic dimension’, in The Romanian Journal of Society and Politics, vol. 1, no. 2, November 2001, pp. 30–1.Google Scholar
  25. 74.
    I. Brinar and M. Svetlicić, ‘Enlargement of the European Union: the case of Slovenia’, in Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 6, December 1999, p. 811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 75.
    D. Rupel, ‘National identity in the European Union’, European Voice, 19–25 September 2002.Google Scholar
  27. 76.
    K. Hughes, H. Grabbe and E. Smith, Attitudes of the Central and East European Countries to Integration, Discussion Paper No. IGS99/3, Institute for German Sudies, Universiy of Birmingham, 1999, pp. 22–3, 65.Google Scholar
  28. 77.
    G. Herd, ‘The Baltic states and EU enlargement’, in K. Henderson (ed.), Back to Europe: Central and Eastern Europe and the European Union (London: UCL Press, 1999), p. 265.Google Scholar
  29. 82.
    M. Kunstat, ‘Germany and the Czech Republic’, in V. Handl, J. Hon and O. Pick (eds), Germany and the East-Central Europe since 1990 (Prague: Institute of International Relations, 1999), p. 236.Google Scholar
  30. 84.
    V. Handl and M. Zaborowski, Comparative Czech and Polish Perspectives and Policies on the Eastern Enlargement of the EU and the Prominence of the German Factor, report, Institute for German Studies, University of Birmingham, 1999, pp. 19–20 and 31–2.Google Scholar
  31. 88.
    A. Francis, ‘Poland: the return to Europe’, in M. Mannin (ed.), Pushing Back the Boundaries: the European Union and Central and Eastern Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), p. 296.Google Scholar
  32. 92.
    Cf. the statement that ‘Bulgaria accepts from the very beginning all these principles of the European political life and thus the building of a democratic state from the very start in compliance with the European standards’ (see A. Todorov and A. Ivanov, ‘European standards in the Bulgarian political life’, in I. Bokova and P. Hubchev (eds), Monitoring of Bulgaria’s Accession to the European Union 2000 (Sofia: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2000), p. 27.Google Scholar
  33. 95.
    Some of these possibilities are identified in K. Goetz and S. Hix (eds), ‘Europeanised Politics?: European Integration and National Political Systems’, West European Politics, vol. 23, no. 4, October 2000, pp. 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 98.
    Cf. A. Cottey, ‘The security dimension of EU enlargement’, paper for the PSA conference, London School of Economics, April 2000.Google Scholar
  35. 106.
    See Handl and Zaborowski, Comparative Czech and Polish Perspectives, p. 58; A. Ágh, ‘Europeanisation of policy-making in East-Central Europe: the Hungarian approach to EU accession’, in Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 17, December 1999, p. 841.Google Scholar
  36. 109.
    See A. Mayhew, Recreating Europe: the European Union’s Policy towards Central and Eastern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 196–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Geoffrey Pridham 2005

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations