Search

This essay outlines theoretical visions or paradigms that have underpinned empirical and historical work on the great transformation in Central and Eastern Europe. Such paradigms shaped “sociological imaginations” and analytical lenses through which scholars generated important questions and developed their research interests and projects. The study of post-communism was influenced by three such paradigms: the first focused on the immediate communist past as the main constraint on post-1989 transformations; the second attempted to transcend the specificities of post-communism and integrate the study of the region with the general comparative politics enterprise; and finally, the third signified the return to a disciplined exploration of historical and cultural contexts and their role in shaping the outcomes of transformations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores how the study of post-communism has transformed comparative politics by adding a substantial role for external actors to existing theories of democratization. The big, overarching finding is dramatic: external actors can, under certain conditions, tip the balance in favor of democracy by offering strong rewards to elites, conditional on complying with tough requirements. External actors can also influence the performance of the state—and how the state treats its citizens. The main causal player is the European Union. This simple finding is consequential for all three major strands of democratization theory. The article goes on to explore how the leverage of the European Union has shaped the trajectories of political change in the new and credible future EU members in East Central and South Eastern Europe. The great variation among existing and candidate members can be largely explained by different domestic conditions, even though there are many areas where the EU’s use of its leverage could have been improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay addresses two controversies on the relationship between civil society and democratization in post-communist countries. It contradicts a tendency to dismiss civil society as a myth, ideology, or framing device for social movements and instead demonstrates that civil society is a real material force that has played a critical role in democratic breakthroughs in the region. It also criticizes the tendency to characterize post-communist civil society as either strong or weak in a blanket fashion. Instead, it shows that looking at differences in the strength of civil society at moments of transition is a good indicator of how durable that transition will be. This is illustrated with empirical work on both the breakthrough years of 1989-1991 and the period of the color revolutions in the 2000s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]