Читать книгу Pathways - Группа авторов - Страница 13

The conceptual idea behind this book is that the way in which each aspect of the four transitions was handled by the elites constitutes the specificity of regime transition in each post-communist country. However, connecting the four transitions as well as the impact of the international context is a highly ambitious agenda. The challenge is to gain new theoretical and conceptual insights into factors that determined whether political development ran from authoritarian regime to consolidated democracy or not. In accordance with Karl and Schmitter’s (1995) suggestions, we seek to combine the approaches used in area- and case-specific studies with those of cross-comparative studies. Our claim is that agency matters, but that it must be underpinned by the historical and socio-economic contexts within the interrelated transitions. In theoretical terms, this implies a sociological rather than a rational choice perspective on agency (March & Olson 1984; Hall & Taylor 1996), and in methodological terms it requires that we maximise variation.

The choice of Kazakhstan, Georgia, Estonia, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia makes for a maximum of variation in background variables. In this sense there are resonances of the debate of the 1990s concerning transitology versus area studies, and thus more explicitly concerning the comparability of transitions in Latin America and Southern Europe with those that took place in the post-communist countries.

On the one hand, it was argued, the post-communist transitions should be utilised in systematic comparisons to reveal if there are differences between the regions, thus engaging in the process of theory building and operationalisation of concepts based on solid empirical research (Schmitter & Karl 1994; Karl & Schmitter 1995). On the other hand, it was argued, the differences between the regions were too extensive to permit fruitful comparisons, in part because the regime changes in the post-communist area involved more dimensions than those in Southern Europe and Latin America (Bunce 1995b). Instead it was emphasised that the post-communist experience constituted a ‘comparative laboratory’ (Bunce 2001, 793), not only because of the sheer number of cases but, more importantly, because they had all been exposed to similar ‘homogenizing effects of the socialist experience’ and shared defining characteristics with respect to dominant ideology and economic, social and political models (Bunce 1999). This is not to say that there are no differences. As Bunce (1999) herself makes clear, by 1995 Slovenia was about 25 times richer than Tajikistan.

The methodological implication of Bunce’s argument of similarity in postcommunist countries is that there is far less need to root studies in their historical context and the political economy. However, a simple comparative model will suffice only if we assume that all cases are alike. We argue instead that variation may be just as comprehensive within the post-communist countries, giving rise to an equally justified warning about comparing not just apples, but apples and kangaroos. Table 1, which compares the cases with respect to a number of variables, is ample evidence of the striking variance between the selected cases. Comparing their political and economic legacies, the Czech Republic and Poland belonged to the ‘outer Soviet empire’. Estonia, Georgia and Kazakhstan were integral parts of the Soviet Union, whereas Slovenia was a constituent part of socialist Yugoslavia. With respect to traditions of statehood, Poland was ostensibly an independent state. The Czech Republic gained independence through the ‘velvet divorce’ from Slovakia. Estonia and Georgia could point to a few symbolically and politically important years of independence prior to their forced incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1940 and 1921, respectively. Kazakhstan was originally part of Tsarist Russia, and if Slovenia had ever experienced independence before achieving its current status, that legacy has faded even from public memory.

Table 1: SELECTED BACKGROUND VARIABLES IN SIX SELECTED POST-COMMUNIST COUNTRIES

The countries also differ with respect to size, wealth and ethnic composition. Measured by population size, Poland is about 30 times bigger than Estonia. In ethnic terms Poland is the most homogenous country, minorities constituting approximately three per cent of the total population. At the other end of the spectrum, the titular inhabitants of Kazakhstan make up a bare majority, and in Estonia the minority comprises almost one-third of the population. In terms of wealth the four European countries are almost 15 times richer than Kazakhstan and Georgia (even though Kazakhstan has experienced almost double-digit growth in recent years).

If we look at the first institutional choices after the fall of communism, the differences between the cases become even more striking. Politically the six cases differ with respect to their form of government. Parliamentarianism prevails among the European countries (Johannsen 2000), even though Poland has chosen a more semi-presidential system. Likewise, the Slovenian system is fundamentally parliamentary despite its directly elected president. In contrast, the Georgian system is ostensibly semi-presidential, while the Kazakhi system can best be described as ‘de facto’ presidentialism.

By maximising variation in the background variables, we stress that the way in which elite preferences and choices are formed by the four transition areas and linked to the international environment provides unique ‘keys’ to understanding the political development in the countries in question. As a result, we called for contributions that root the elite choices in their socioeconomic and historical context and asked each author to focus on the decisive feature for the outcome in his or her case. Put another way: ‘what is the key to understanding the political development of the country in question?’

Identifying these keys was not the task of the contributing authors. But extracting the keys from their in-depth insights allows us to subsequently address the issue of comparability across the cases. Why is a feature decisive in one context but not in another? Why does an elite in one context obtain particular incentives and preferences not found in other contexts? In this comparison we offer, in methodological terms, a foundation for (re-)constructing an alternative view of transition trajectories in the post-communist space by deconstructing the ‘keys’ in the combinations of the four transitions. Rather than straying into a debate over democracy versus authoritarianism, we stress that the ‘key’ that results from a combination of circumstances can help us understand political development.

The structure of this book is based on country studies that take us from East to West. We start in Kazakhstan, go on to Georgia and then turn north to Estonia. After Estonia we jump south to Slovenia, before we end with the two ‘traditional’ core central European states, the Czech Republic and Poland. Although we are searching for connections between developments in five transition areas, the authors have been given a free hand to approach the issues in their own spirit and style of writing, focusing of course on the ‘key’ to understanding post-communist developments. In the concluding chapter our point of departure is ‘keys to transition’. Applying our comparative strategy with the transition areas as the core unit, we look for possible pathways to political development, proposing that the ‘keys’ emerge from the combination of challenges and decisions against the backdrop of the historical context.