The sample discussion question that Professor King posted for this week asks whether or not the "legacies" of the Communist system actually matter in the postcommunist world. After reading the works of Hassner, McFaul, and Howard, I think that it would be difficult to argue that a history of Communism did not affect the current political situation of these countries.
To begin with, Hassner talks about Russia's potential to become democratic. He believes that because of Russia's recent (and historically-rooted) strained relations with many parts of the outside world, Russia tends to compete and mistrust the West rather than collaborate with it. Furthermore, Putin has been able to reinstall the repression of certain liberties within the country, including freedom of the press. Without a history of Communism in the country, Russian citizens may not have put up with such restrictive measures.
In "Transitions from Postcommunism," McFaul emphasizes several factors that contribute to the success of democratic breakthroughs in postcommunist countries. Many of these factors seem unique to countries that have experienced Communist rule and have become disillusioned. McFaul cites "fraudulent national election" and "a united and organized opposition" as two such causes for creating a revolutionary situation. Because of their frustration with corruption and desire to cooperate with other democratic-minded parties, citizens of postcommunist parties have been able to create change by uniting in large numbers against tyranny.
Finally, Howard describes how the lack of civil society has a deleterious effect on the ability of postcommunist countries to become democratic. This work seems to provide the greatest support for the original hypothesis; because of citizens' mistrust of communist organizations, their current political situation is unable to significantly advance through increased participation in civil society. Though this seems to be a necessary prerequisite for democracy as Howard argues, it may not be a requirement for maintaining a democracy, as we see in the case of the United States (with decreasing levels of involvement in organizations). It also seems that Howard is ignoring a variety of other factors that encourage democracy by focusing on this one subject. I think it is unfair that a country is doomed to fail in its democratic quest if it does not attain the recommended level of participation in society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Though it is unfair to say that a country is doomed to fail in its democratic quest if it does not attain the recommended level of participation in society, the level of participation in a democratic society is definately very important. Citizen's participation helps them to further develop the democratic habits and skills that are embodied in a democratic system. High level of participation will also prevent unjust laws and promote legistlations in favor of the majority. If there is a low level of participation, how is the country a democratic nation, because then it seems as if the government will rule everything since there is no one to stop them or to rule againt them. Democracy is a government in which the supreme power lies in the people. It is supposed that the citizen's high level of participation is what aids to make democracy stronger in a nation. Democracy is a system of free rights and better representation, if the mass do not participate, how do we get a popular sovereignty?
In referring to McFaul, you mentioned and presented two of his factors for a successful Democratic breakthrough, among them "fraudulent national election" and "a united and organized opposition". Many of these factors do not only SEEM unique to countries that have undergone Communist rule, but ARE unique; especially to the countries he emphasizes on: Serbia, Georgia, and the Ukraine. In addition, I would like to add to the importance of the other factors that were not mentioned. For instance, a semi-autocratic regime; they are vulnerable to collapse at some point, or the failing popularity of the incumbent leader. But, I would like to highlight the importance of the MASSES. Without the ability to mobilize significant numbers of citizens for a purpose, especially one directly related to government, then change is far-fetched. The masses alone cannot achieve a breakthrough, and neither can governments alone. Together, however, even in opposition, much can be attained and change thus, becomes a possibility.
Is participation essential to the definition of a democracy and are citizens of Post-Communist countries doomed to continually be a part of democratic stagnation simply because they choose not to participate?
This is where I might have some speculations. The citizens of Post-Communist countries do not trust civil societies because participation was made mandatory and was often controlled by the state under communism. I think Civil Society plays a large role in maintaining what a democratic state should look like, but I don't think it necessarily contributes greatly to it. Not as much as legitimate elections, a free media, and a decrease in state control. In order for citizens to be a part of any civil society, some things must come first. Encouraging citizens to be a part of groups won't do much unless they realize their role and impact in the formation of their state. Until that power is recognized or even physically placed in their hands, there will not be an incentive to contribute or participate in society. This does not mean their state could revert to communism. I believe, once you manage to get out of communism, it would be difficult to revert back to it. Thus, the momentum can only go positive, confidence was instilled in the process and rule of law. Consequently, when these come about, citizens will also play an active role in trying to maintain it.
Post a Comment