Democratic Transition Publications
This paper seeks the publics' answer to the question "transition to what?" While public opinion is only one piece of the complex mosaic necessary to understand the changes in the region, the revolutions of 1989 have certainly shown that mass publics cannot be ignored. Based on over thirty national surveys in Central and East Europe commissioned by the United States Information Agency (USIA) over the last three years, the authors examine public beliefs about the role of the individual and the state, the degree of public support for market reform, and attitudes toward ethnic rights as well as assessments of "outsiders." After consideration of each of these dimensions, they present a typology classifying countries based on public attitudes.
This book comparatively explores the obstacles countries face in sustaining and consolidating democratic systems. Topics include social services, poverty, and inequality, specific case studies, and how government policy and development practices improve the quality of life of citizens in democratic regimes.
63. Decentralization and Regionalization after Communism: Lessons from Administrative and Territorial Reform in Poland and the Czech RepublicJul 07, 2011
While the regional level of authority has gained much attention in recent years in Western Europe, Eastern Europe is still emerging from decades of centralization and homogenization under communism. Several post-communist countries, however, have taken steps toward administrative decentralization and territorial regionalization. This article explores possible reasons for taking these steps and traces the progress of administrative and territorial reform in two post-communist cases: Poland and the Czech Republic. The conclusion considers several implications of these reforms for domestic politics and foreign relations.
From 1970-2000, "only 13 percent of countries with a very young age structure had fully democratic governments, compared with 83 percent of countries with a mature age structure," says Elizabeth Leahy, who compares age structure to conflict in Nigeria, Ethiopia, Iran, and Pakistan.
December 2002- Bulgaria's post-1989 transition to a multi-party democracy and market economy, both functioning under the rule of law, has obviously been slow if judged by Hungary's exemplary standard. Ten governments and five parliaments in 12 years have hampered the political pursuit of sustained policies. The shock of a collapsing Soviet trade regime hit Bulgarian exports – one half of which had gone to the USSR – particularly hard. Legal foreign trade suffered and illegal activity mushroomed with Western sanctions against Serbia and Greece's embargo against what it still calls the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. But that was the 1990s, and now in the new century, there are enough signs of progress to hope that impending NATO membership will indeed be followed before the end of the decade by EU membership.
These four papers attempt to summarize and understand the successes and failures of the Constantinescu presidency one year into it. The authors analyze changes to Romania's media, inconsistencies in the country's parliament, alterations in U.S.-Romanian relations, as well as the state of the Romanian economy one year after the 1996 democratic election.
This report results from a 2002 conference held to evaluate the ten years following the accord between El Salvador's government and guerrillas of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front. The conference aimed to assess the nature of the democratic transition and related socio-economic developments in the post-war era.
The Milosevic regime was a classic example of what has been called a “democradura,” i.e., a system which combined some of the mechanisms of democracy (with the result that Milosevic’s Socialists were, at one point, forced to enter into a coalition with Seselj’s Radicals, in order to form a government) with many overtly authoritarian features (among which one might mention the constriction of press freedom, the use of the police against the political opposition, and systematic violations of human rights). If, as the author has argued elsewhere, political legitimacy hinges on the observance of routinized, legal, and accepted procedures for political succession, then much depends on the origins of the given regime. Accordingly, to understand the nature of the Milosevic regime and the roots of its crisis, one must return to its origins in 1987.