Post-Communist Accession Governments: Policy Orientation, Institutional Adjustment and Implementing Democratic Conditionality

  • Geoffrey Pridham

Abstract

It is sometimes maintained that distinguishing between Europeanisation and democratisation is really impossible.1 But that overstates the problem if one accepts that: (a) the two processes are autonomous and originally separate for post-Communist democratisation commenced in 1989-90 before integration impinged seriously over accession; and (b) a distinction is possible between direct democratising effects which are more easily distinguishable (notably through implementing the EU’s political conditions) and indirect ones which may be more difficult to isolate. The latter may, for example, arise from participating in EU institutional mechanisms such as the joint parliamentary committees (JPCs) and from the involvement of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) ministerial personnel in the EU’s decision-making processes, whether through their presence at European Council summits or most of all their immersion in membership negotiations. Indirect effects are, of course, more likely to occur once Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) are member states.

Keywords

Europe Assure Resis Arena Harness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    For example, B. Lippert, G. Umbach and W. Wessels, ‘Europeanisation of CEE executives: EU membership negotiations as a shaping power’, in Journal of European Public Policy, special issue 2001, p. 985. ‘The context of transformation makes it difficult, however, to distinguish unambiguously between those processes that are caused by, and connected to, EU integration and those associated with democratisation and marketisation.’Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Ágh, Anticipatory and Adaptive Europeanization in Hungary (Budapest: Hungarian Centre for Democracy Studies, 2003), p. 92.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    According to Crowther, ideological affinities between Iliescu and Gorbachev played a part here, but so did a dependence on Russian raw materials and initial diplomatic difficulties with the West, see W. Crowther, ‘The European Union and Romania: the politics of constrained transition’, in P. Kubicek (ed.), The European Union and Democratization (London: Routledge, 2003), pp. 93–4.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    I. Brinar and M. Svetlicić, ‘Enlargement of the European Union: the case of Slovenia’, in Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 5, December 1999, p. 810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 7.
    M. B. Williams, ‘Exporting the democratic deficit: Hungary’s experience with EU integration’, in Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 48, no. 1, January-February 2001, p. 30.Google Scholar
  6. 12.
    H. Grabbe and K. Hughes, Enlarging the EU Eastwards (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1998), p. 75.Google Scholar
  7. 22.
    The EP report said that it ‘considers that smooth development of the negotiations will depend upon Romania’s capacity to bring her child welfare fully inside the UN Convention for the Rights of the Child, since this forms part of the acquis communautaire of Justice and Home Affairs which chapter’s opening is planned for autumn 2001’ (European Parliament, Draft Report on Romania’s membership application to the EU, 23 May 2001, p. 7).Google Scholar
  8. 24.
    J. Marušiak, J. Alner, P. Lukac, R. Chmel, I. Samson and A. Duleba ‘The foreign policy and national security of the Slovak Republic’, in G. Mesežnikov, M. Ivantysyn and T. Nicholson (eds), Slovakia, 1998–1999: a Global Report on the State of Society (Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 1999), pp. 178–9.Google Scholar
  9. 27.
    J. Marušiak, A. Duleba, Z. Melisova-Bates and P. Lukáč, ‘Foreign policy: main trends, bilateral relations, Visegrad cooperation’, in G. Mesežnikov, M. Kollár and T. Nicholson (eds), Slovakia 2001: a Global Report on the State of Society (Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 2002), pp. 231–2.Google Scholar
  10. 31.
    S. Huntington, ‘Political development and political decay’, World Politics, vol. 18, April 1965, p. 394.Google Scholar
  11. 32.
    It has, however, been given emphasis as one of the five arenas of democratic consolidation as the embodiment of rational-legal authority, see J. Linz and A. Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), chapters 1 and 2.Google Scholar
  12. 33.
    J. March and J. Olsen, ‘The new institutionalism: organisational factors in political life’, in American Political Science Review, September 1984, vol. 27, p. 738.Google Scholar
  13. 34.
    G. Pridham, The Dynamics of Democratization: a Comparative Approach (London: Continuum, 2000), chapter 4.1.Google Scholar
  14. 35.
    On structural convergence, see M. Green Cowles, J. Caporaso and T. Risse, Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001), pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
  15. 36.
    European Commission, Enlargement Composite Paper 99 (Brussels, 1999), p. 23.Google Scholar
  16. 37.
    K. Goetz and H. Wollmann, ‘Governmentalizing central executives in post-Communist Europe: a four-country comparison’, in Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 8, no. 6, 2001, special issue on Executive Governance in Central and Eastern Europe, p. 878.Google Scholar
  17. 38.
    See M. Brusis and J. Emmanouilidis, Negotiating EU Accession: Policy Approaches of Advanced Candidate Countries from Central and Eastern Europe, Munich: Centre for Applied Policy Research (CAP), July 2000, pp. 12–14.Google Scholar
  18. 41.
    M. Wlachovsky, A. Duleba, P. Lukac and T. Skladony, ‘The foreign policy of the Slovak Republic’, in M. Bútora and T. Skladony (eds), Slovakia 1996–97: a Global Report on the State of Society (Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 1998), pp. 82–83.Google Scholar
  19. 52.
    European Commission, Enlargement 98: Composite Paper on the Commission Reports (Brussels, 1998), p. 19.Google Scholar
  20. 53.
    European Commission, Enlargement: Strategy Paper 2002 (Brussels, 2002), pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
  21. 55.
    A. Jablonski, ‘The Europeanisation of government in Poland in the 1990s’, in K. Cordeil (ed.), Poland and the European Union (London: Routledge, 2000), p. 136.Google Scholar
  22. 56.
    A. Ágh, Anticipatory and Adaptive Europeanization in Hungary (Budapest: Hungarian Centre for Democracy Studies, 2003), p. 117.Google Scholar
  23. 57.
    J.-H. Meyer-Sahling, ‘Civil service reform in post-Communist Europe: the bumpy road to depoliticisation’, in West European Politics, vol. 27, no. 1, January 2004, pp. 71–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 58.
    V. Nižňanský and M. Kňažko, ‘Public administration’, in G. Mesežnikov, M. Kollár and T. Nicholson (eds), Slovakia 2000: A Global Report on the State of Society (Bratislava, Institute for Public Affairs, 2001), pp. 104–6. An official of the PHARE Programme responsible for the modernisation of public administration, in Bratislava since 1997, commented with some frustration on the difficulty of changing the Slovak bureaucracy because there was ‘the same mentality as before 1989’ (interview with Hans de Facq, PHARE Programme, in Bratislava, May 2000).Google Scholar
  25. 60.
    European Parliament, Draft Report on Romania’s membership application to the European Union, 23 May 2001, p. 15.Google Scholar
  26. 64.
    A. Dimitrova, ‘Enlargement, institution-building and the EU’s administrative capacity requirement’, in West European Politics, vol. 25, no. 4, October 2002, p. 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 68.
    D. Bailey and L. de Propris, ‘A bridge too Phare? EU pre-accession aid and capacity-building in the candidate countries’, in Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 42, no. 1, March 2004, pp. 86–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 78.
    A. Ágh, Anticipatory and Adaptive Europeanization in Hungary, pp. 118, 120; Jablonski, in K. Cordeil (ed.), Poland and the European Union, pp. 139–42. On the interaction of this EU-induced reform with domestic politics, see M. Ferry, ‘The EU and regional reform in Poland’, in Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 55/7, November 2003.Google Scholar
  29. 79.
    D. Marek and M. Baun, ‘The EU as a regional actor: the case of the Czech Republic’, in Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 40, no. 5, December 2002, pp. 895–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 80.
    UNDP, Latvia: Human Development Report, 2000–2001, pp. 34, 42.Google Scholar
  31. 91.
    Z. Kalaydjieva, ‘An independent judicial system in the context of EU accession’, in European Institute, Sofia, Bulgaria’s Progress towards EU Membership in 2000 -the NGOs’Perspective (Sofia, 2001), p. 18.Google Scholar
  32. 92.
    T. Carothers, Aiding Democracy Abroad: the Learning Curve (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1999), pp. 165, 173–4.Google Scholar
  33. 94.
    European Commission, 2002 Regular Report on Latvia’s Progress towards Accession (Brussels, 2002), p. 34.Google Scholar
  34. 96.
    European Commission, 2002 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress towards Accession (Brussels, 2002), p. 37.Google Scholar
  35. 101.
    Interview with Václav Žák, editor of Listy: Journal for Politics and Culture, in Prague, March 2003.Google Scholar
  36. 103.
    European Commission, 2001 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress Towards Accession (Brussels, 2001), p. 21.Google Scholar
  37. 104.
    European Commission, 2002 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress Towards Accession (Brussels, 2002), p. 26.Google Scholar
  38. 106.
    M. Vasečka, ‘Roma’, in G. Mesežnikov, M. Kollár and T. Nicholson (eds), Slovakia 2002: A Global Report on the State of Society (Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 2003), pp. 180–1.Google Scholar
  39. 107.
    European Commission, Composite Paper: Reports on Progress Towards Accession by Each of the Candidate Countries (Brussels, 1999), p. 16.Google Scholar
  40. 111.
    European Commission, 2002 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress towards Accession (Brussels, 2002), pp. 35–7.Google Scholar
  41. 112.
    European Commission, 1999 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress towards Accession (Brussels, 1999), p. 15.Google Scholar
  42. 113.
    European Parliament, Draft Report on Romania’s Membership Application to the European Union, 23 May 2001, p. 7.Google Scholar
  43. 116.
    European Commission, 2001 Regular Report on Romania’s Progress Towards Accession (Brussels, 2001), p. 23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Geoffrey Pridham 2005

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations