Suchergebnisse

Fieldwork studies in Yugoslavia and Hungary revealed different forms and limitations of "market socialism" in the 1980s. Adapted from the source document.

Nowadays, it is easy to forget just how pessimistic observers were in 1990 about the possibility of simultaneously introducing capitalism and competitive politics to the ex-socialist states of Eastern Europe. Often, debates seemed to hinge simply on which would subvert which, that is, whether the economic shocks of reform would destabilize democratic governments or whether populist appeals to the losers of economic adjustment would derail economic reform. That popularly elected government and systemic economic change could mutually reinforce each other seemed, at the time, to describe a fool's paradise. Yet now that the dust has begun to settle, this appears to have been exactly what happened.

This article explores the causes for the pervasive sentiment in contemporary Eastern Europe to the effect that "it is democratic but it isn't". It begins with a discussion of the differences between "procedural" and "substantive" democracy, and finds that the institutions of procedural democracy have proven surprisingly robust in the post-communist period. It then examines three variants of substantive democracy: liberal, national, and egalitarian. Each links democratic government to a particular social and economic order, none of which fully describes the actual situation within most states in the area. Finally, these distinctions between types of democracy are employed to illuminate the dynamics of both policy choices regarding restitution and privatization and electoral outcomes in the past half-decade.

Die Verfasserin setzt sich in systematischer Weise mit der vielschichtigen Frage nach dem Charakter der Demokratie in Osteuropa auseinander. Grundlegend für ihre Untersuchung ist die Unterscheidung zwischen prozeduraler Demokratie im Sinne der Anwendung demokratischer Verfahren und substantieller Demokratie. Die Verfasserin zeigt, daß sich die Institutionen der prozeduralen Demokratie in den postkommunistischen Gesellschaften als überraschend robust erwiesen haben. Sie arbeitet im folgenden drei Spielarten substantieller Demokratie heraus, die liberaldemokratische, die nationaldemokratische und die egalitär- demokratische Variante. Jede dieser Varianten verknüpft die demokratische Regierungsform mit einer bestimmten Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftsordnung, von denen in Osteuropa jedoch keine in reiner Form vorzufinden ist. Abschließend diskutiert die Verfasserin unter Bezug auf die drei genannten Typen substantieller Demokratie politische Optionen der Privatisierung sowie das Wahlverhalten im Verlauf der vergangenen fünf Jahre. (BIOst-Wpt)

Discussion of differences between "procedural" and "substantive" democracy and their impacts on restitution and privatization policies and electoral outcomes. Examines three variants of substantive democracy (liberal, national, and egalitarian) and their links to a particular social and economic order.

In a case study of how claims of former owners for the return of nationalized assets were dealt with in Hungary, the explanatory power of theories emphasizing the importance of cultural "legacies" is tested against that of theories stressing the impact of institutional incentives in accounting for political outcomes. In Hungary, the structure of post-1989 institutions provides a persuasive explanation of the Compensation Law; legacies had a largely rhetorical impact. Yet, restitution claims were dealt with equally generously elsewhere in Eastern Europe despite differing institutional features and partisan alignments and despite the fact that former owners everywhere were a relatively unrepresentative outlier in electorates as a whole. Hence, although institutions clearly affected how former owners' demands were processed, they do not account for the strength of the demand itself. The implication is that the substantive array of forces on the political spectrum and the nature of groups able to capture the center in decision-making bodies may be a more critical factor in the survival of pluralism than either formal institutions or global political culture.