Liberal Pluralism and Post-Communism

Abstract

A comment on Will Kymlicka's "Western Political Theory and Ethnic Relations in Eastern Europe" (2001) argues that principles of liberal democracy & democratic pluralism work only if they match extant political, sociological, & cultural realities. Problems with Anglo-Saxon analyses of postcommunism are delineated, noting that the central tension in the context of liberal pluralism is the relationship between individual & collective identities. Collective identities may delimit individual choice & be coercive in terms of cognitions, but they are structurally universal despite vast content variations. Regarding the acceptance of collective identities, ie, ethnic groups, as legitimate, the character of ethnicity is explored, along with the persistence of ethnic identities. Attention turns to the role of political institutions & cultural reproduction, highlighting issues related to the state & contending that in Central & Southeastern Europe there has been little purchase for liberal pluralism during & after communism. In addition, why postcommunist civil society has been unable to meet its democratizing responsibility is considered, asserting that differences between established democracies & postcommunist states make direct comparisons useless. The relevance of native rule & the placement of political elites in the grounding of first- & second-order rules governing the exercise of power are seen as reasons behind liberal democracy's development in Western Europe. The dysfunction of second-order rules in postcommunist states is then addressed. In closing, the idea of a double standard vis-a-vis Western views of democracy & human rights enforcement in postcommunist states is briefly touched on. J. Zendejas