National (dis)unity, nation-building and democratization in the short and long run

National (dis)unity, nation-building and democratization in the short-and-long-run The unfinished transition of Moldova Xhensila Gaba

Course: Current Debates in Political Science Instructor: Ilir Kalemaj Spring 2012

1

Structure of the paper I.

Introduction

II.

Research questions

III.

Literature review a. The linkages between nation and democracy: theoretical framework

IV.

Thesis statement

V.

Methodology

VI.

Body paragraph 1: a. Moldova’s transitology: Democratization under national disunity and

separatism (short-term impact of national disputes) VII.

Body paragraph 2: a. National division and democratization: Negative impact on the long-run

VIII. Conclusions

2

Abstract The dissolution of USSR was accompanied with the problem of stateness. Inter-ethnic and nationalistic clashes emerged during the regime change. The fall of Communism was like the opening of Pandora’s Box. Once USSR disintegrated, ethnic and nationalistic claims complicated the transitional period of many former Soviet states due to their heterogeneous composition of the population. Still today many of the former Soviet states have not yet finished their democratization process, but they are left in the “grey zone”, neither authoritarian nor democratic. Ukraine for example has formed a hybrid regime. On the other hand, the case of Belarus shows for a backlash of the transition through becoming an authoritarian regime and the “last dictatorship of Europe”. Moldova has suffered violent civil wars due to nationalistic problems. Its democratization is hostage of Transnistrian conflict, a separatist region that is impeding its consolidation. The aim of this paper is to research on the relation between nationalism, nation-building and democratization. Some scholars argue that national unity is a precondition for the democratization to occur, whereas others argue that national disunity can distract malicious authoritarian ambitions in some cases, and therefore this disunity helps in reaching democracy. After reviewing the literature I focus on the impact of national division on democratization both in the short-run and in the long-run. Timing constitutes an important element of my thesis. Theories are applied for the case of Moldovan transition. Is nationalism a deadlock for Moldovan democratization?

3

Introduction Once USSR broke down, nationalistic sentiments that were oppressed under the Soviet centralized rule emerged right after the dissolution by complicating in this way the democratization process in multiethnic societies. Many former-Soviet states have gone through a violent process of democratic transition, some ending in civil wars, genocide or even separatist movements like the case of Abkhazia in Georgia or Transnistria in Moldova. The main cause behind civil wars and secessionism are the disputes among ethnic groups which re-emerged as soon as the central power collapsed, but this time their nationalistic claims were harder to control and thus affecting the democratization process. Although all former-Soviet states embarked on the transitional process but they have undertaken different paths and hence the outcomes of the process have been different. Baltic States have completed their transition and consolidation, others have stuck in the “grey zones� and as for the case of Belarus, its transition has failed by returning to a nondemocratic regime (Polsdottir, 2011). Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova are still struggling in their way towards democratization and the national disunity seems to be a major factor.

The third wave of democratization emerged into countries that were culturally and ethnically fragmented. Thus, these new events paved the way for researching further on the linkages between ethnic identity, nationalism, nation-building and democratization. Many viewed national fragmentation as an obstacle to democratization process. The third wave of democratization in Eastern Europe and Soviet Union became a contextual frame for emphasizing

4

upon the issue of stateness as a necessary prerequisite for a successful democratization (McFaul, 2002).

The Republic of Moldova represents the case of a multiethnic population which soon after declaring its independence on 27 August 1991, it found itself in difficulty with regard to managing nationalistic sentiments (Protsyk, 2009). Moldova probably never thought of a longterm vision of the state and how the multiethnic interests would be accommodated within the rules of the new democratic regime. However, Moldova has reached relatively high standards of democracy. Referring to procedural democracy, Moldova has accomplished many of the procedural indicators such as free elections every year, political pluralism (although a pluralism by default, which will be analyzed in the following sector), or relative freedom of organization in political and civil society. However, the scope of this paper is not to analyze deeper on the procedural level of democracy in Moldova, as it is accepted the pro-Western orientation of Moldova (USAID, 2005). The paper will focus on the impact of national heterogeneity in the democratization process of Moldova. The implications of nation-building processes for the unfinished democratic transition of Moldova will be analyzed below.

Research questions Given the events of the third wave of democratization in Eastern Europe and Soviet Union, the aim of this paper is to research on the relation between nationalism and democratization. What is the role of nationalism to the democratization processes of ethnically heterogeneous states? How are nationalistic disputes implicated in processes of democratization or de-democratization? And in the case of Moldova, why has Moldova failed to finish its transition and fully consolidate despite achieving quite high standards of democracy?

5

Why has Moldova failed to complete its democratization process? What is the role of nationalism and nation-building in the democratization process of Moldova?

Literature review Democratization includes the process of transition and consolidation from a nondemocratic regime to a more democratic one. However the timing of this process varies and the ending point is never certain. The transition and consolidation of democratic regime are subsequent process or they can be achieved simultaneously as in the case of Portugal. However, a successful democratization finishes as soon as democracy becomes the “only game in town�

(Linz&Stepan, 1996). The phase of transition implies a shift from one political system to another and it can be three or four-fold including liberalization (or marketization phase as Kuzio names it), nation-building and state-building. Linz and Stepan (1996) have argued that the defining of a political community through the processes of nation-building and state-building remain at the fore of democratization.

Nation-building, as one of the transitional processes, is focused on strengthening a common national identity among the peoples of a state. Nationalistic claims are fueled by legacies of ethnic grievances among ethnic groups and those claims are revived in transitional periods. Kuzio (2002) notes that transition includes parallel processes, but in the case of Moldova transition occurred even in the absence of a successful nation-building. The attempts to establish either Romanian or Moldovan nation have contributed in pushing forward statebuilding and democratization. However, transition has not finished yet despite all the achievements and this implies that national disunity can be quite a risk in long-run democratization processes.

6

a. The linkages between nation and democracy: theoretical framework In analyzing the relation between nation and democracy, scholars have elaborated two opposite approaches with regard to the prerequisites for democracy. The first approach is the classical model developed by Rustow which argues that democratization needs acceptance or agreement by the population of a state in defining the political community (Johansson, 2011). If there is a coherent political community, then political parties are less likely to challenge the assumptions of what lies in the national interest. For a democracy to rule and prevail, it is essential that the members of a state all agree on what constitutes the borders of the political community. According to the Rustow’s classical theory, the national disunity is a challenge and obstacle to democratization. Moreover, other authors argue the same thing. For example, John Stuart Mill argues that ethnic diversity and ethnic nationalistic claims represent major obstacles to the stability of democracy (Beissinger, 2007). The ideas of Rustow were further developed by O’Donnell, Schmitter and Whitehead, but these studies were focused mostly on Southern Europe and Latin America, countries in which the problem of stateness was not a worrying factor for democratization. Hence further research needed to be developed to prove whether the classical theory was geographically isolated or not.

The second approach for democratization is developed by Lucan Way and it argues the opposite of the classical theory. According to Lucan, national disunity may help democratization because it prevents autocratic ambitions to collect massive support since the attention is focused on the nationalistic claims of each group (Johansson, 2011). This theory is groundbreaking with regard to the earlier understanding of national disunity as a negative factor for democratization.

Furthermore, Way asserts that national disunity may promote pluralism in the short run, although it hinders consolidation in the long run.

7

As for the political context including political parties and leadership during transitional periods, Lucan Way has developed the model of pluralism by default (Johansson, 2001). A plurality by default occurs when the political actors are not able to control the power and the weakening of certain nondemocratic features occurs not by the desire of the actors, but because of lack of control and lack of ability to mobilize resources within the state. In other words, the pluralist system is not by choice of the political actors, but because of the inability to centralize power. According to Way, national division is a factor that influences the state of pluralism by default.

When is consolidation reached? The literature suggests that it is much easier to study transition at its initial phase rather than analyze its shift from transitional period to consolidation of democracy. The same happens with nation-building processes. It is easier to study the phenomena per se than identify when a state has moved from nation-building phase to being an uncontested and generally accepted nation. Consolidation of democracy and nation, however are more fluid than state-building. However, according to Przeworski, democracy is consolidated when it becomes the “only game in town�. Further specification is provided by Linz and Stepan (1996) who define a consolidated democracy based on three aspects: behaviorally, attitudinally and constitutionally.

Thesis statement In this paper, I argue that in the case of Moldova national disunity has had a positive short-term impact on distracted authoritarian ambitions of the political leadership through diverting their focus in nationalistic propaganda rather than back lashing the transition, as in case

8

of Belarus. However, I further argue that national disunity is a negative factor and deadlock for the long-term continuance of democratization by impeding democratic consolidation.

Methodology The research method used in this paper is mostly a bibliographic research consisting of reviewed articles. I aim to research on the relation between nationalism (the independent variable) and democratization (the dependent variable) in order to see how these two variables are correlated to each other. I apply the theoretical framework to the case of Moldova.

Moldova’s transitology: Democratization under national disunity and separatism The Republic of Moldova provides an interesting case study. It is a new state in SouthEastern Europe that did not have ethnic homogeneity as a base of its foundation. Its ethnic composition is made out of Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Gagauzians and Bulgarians.

Nowadays, Moldova is a unitary state divided into 32 counties, five municipalities, the Gagauzian autonomous territorial unit in the South and the Transnistrian territorial unit which functions as a de facto state in the East (Johansson, 2011). The division of Moldova is a result of ethnic cleavages, but also the fault of the leadership because their prospected the future of Moldova in line with their own interests. Gagauzian case was managed to be resolved more easily by granting autonomy to five enclaves, whereas the Transnistrian conflict resulted in violent civil war and it ended with a secessionist movement which is not resolved yet. These conflicts are keeping Moldova far from finishing its democratization process (Ragone, 2011).

The politics of Moldova have largely been affected by how the nation has been understood. Moldova has suffered from ethno-political tensions that are reflected inside the country as internal conflicts that pertain to the rights to representation, territory, and self9

identification. With regard to culture, the population is divided into pro-eastern Moldovans and pro-western Romanian. Even the political parties are aligned according to their nationalistic ambitions. The rightist are asking for Moldova being part of Romania (as the largest ethnic group is Romanians), the centrist for the independence of Moldova and the leftists for reunification with Russia (Tudoroiu, 2011). Since its independence in 1991, the country has gone through armed conflict. Even though the authoritarian system collapsed, Moldova’s regime change does not necessarily imply a democratization process in which the end would be the democratic consolidation of Moldova. It all depends on how the impeding factors would be addressed in order for Moldova not to have the same destiny as Ukraine or Georgia in being hybrid regimes.

As reviewed in the literature, nation, being it national unity or disunity, influences much the process of democratization (Kuzio, 2002). It is difficult to build democracy in a country plagued by violent secessionist movements. Indeed, Moldova suffered from Transnistrian war and the de facto independence of this region affected severely Moldova’s political system and democratization. However, despite the problems of nation-building and separatism, Moldova has managed to develop most of democratic indicators. How is it possible? Moldova case fits mostly in the theoretical approach developed by Lucan Way. Moldova is a case of pluralism by default, meaning that Moldova is more the example of a failed form of authoritarianism rather than the example of a finished transition (Johansson, 2011). The rivaling parties and politics were result of a fragmented elite and weak state unable to centralize political control, in which national conflicts are identified as major causes. Moldova’s democracy is thereby result of a lucky byproduct of the political elite’s failure to monopolize the domestic political scene (Munoglu, 2011). During the 1990s, the tensions over national identity were harsh enough to weaken monopolizing efforts by any political actor (Johansson, 2011). Consequently they helped prevent 10

the consolidation of a stable and effective democratic government. Transnistrian case diverted the attention of Moldovans away from democratization and instead of following the democratic pro-western trajectory of the Baltic Republics, Moldova found itself in the trap of ethnic conflicts and crisis management.

National division and democratization: Negative impact on the long-run The Moldovan case raises questions as to how nations are built and on what grounds democracy is achieved. Democracy is based on the assumption of a enclosed polity, but it does not suggest how the political community has to be defined (Beissinger, 2007). As pointed out by Connor, nation-building involves both the destruction of competing nationalisms and the promotion of a common identity (Johansson, 2011). To politicians, national identity remains an instrument they can use to win the support of the electorate. Although parliamentary mandates may be yielded, it implies for an ongoing polarization of society on the basis of identity which is very difficult to be resolved compared to socio-economic challenges (Munoglu, 2011). Political elites have often manipulated ethnic identities for their political ends. On the one hand, this has provided a platform for pluralism. On the other hand, it has locked politics to non-negotiable identity positions. But should Moldova be assessed as a divided house in which the democratic consolidation is less likely to happen?

As Lucan Way proposes, national disunity may in fact foster pluralism in the short run, but it works against consolidation in the long run. The unusual nature of Moldova’s democratization led Way to consider how relatively high standards of democracy can be maintained and developed even when classical model for democratization suggests otherwise (USAID, 2005). But there is a point in which both theories, the classical one and Way’s theory,

11

intersect: without national unity, the democratization is incomplete or impossible and thus makes democratic consolidation a lost cause in the long-term. Although national disunity has had a relative positive short-term impact on preventing the centralization of power and resources into malicious authoritarian hands, as in the case of Belarus, still national divisions and particularly separatist movements impede and challenge the end of the transition and full consolidation.

Moldova’s case have the potentials in assessing the national problem by increasing representation and political participation through federalist system as a solution it is suggested in every multi-ethnic state. The democratization of Transnistria region needs to be addressed as well, in order for the two regimes to align towards completing the democratization process.

Another observation on Moldova is that national divisions are not manifested equally on all levels. While national identity is a source of conflict on political level, on the individual or group level it is not so controversial or a topic of concern (Polsdottir, 2011). This leaves room for hope that the problem of national identity can be solved from below by people, so a bottom up process.

Conclusion Despite having a multiethnic population and legacy of past grievances among the ethnic groups which have made difficult the democratization process, Moldova has managed to reach much of the democratic standards and hence increasing the chances for full consolidation.

Moldovan case fits more the Lucan Way’s theoretical framework which asserts that national disunity helps in achieving democratic standards in “pluralism by default” systems. Way argues that the national disputes have diverted the authoritarian intentions of the political actors. Also, the theory of Way does not discourage any democratization process that starts without national unity. However I divided the impact of national disunity on Moldova’s democratization into two 12

categories: short-term impacts and long-term impacts. In the short-term, Moldova has benefited in a way from the national divisions since it has helped in implementing a system of pluralism by default. Political leaders were much worried in gaining power through making use of national disputes rather than mobilization of resources for centralization of power. However, in the long run, national disunity becomes a serious threat and challenge for the consolidation of Moldova.

Transnistrian conflict, among other factors as well, is impeding Moldova to finish its transition and it has left the country on the crossroads. A solution to the case of Moldova is federalism and proportional electoral system.

At the end, Moldova is a case study that contradicts the classical theory which argues that without national unity and without a common political community, the democratization is likely to fail. Moldova has progress in its democratic transition, despite the nationalist problem, being as such a case study for the encouragement of other multinational countries that aspire to democratize. On the other hand, Moldova is still an unfinished transition, because as both theories agree, national unity and common agreement on the political community is essential for long-term consolidation.

13

References

Beissinger, M.,R. (2007). Ethnic identity and democratization: Lessons from the post-Soviet region. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 3(2), 73-99.

Johansson, A. (2011). Dissenting democrats: Nation and democracy in the Republic of Moldova.

Stockholm studies in politics: Stockholm University

Kuzio, T. (2002). History, memory and nation-building in the post-Soviet colonial space.

Nationalities Papers, 30(2),

Linz, J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and post-communist Europe. The Johns Hopkins: University Press.

McFaul, M. (2002). The fourth wave of democracy and dictatorship: Non-cooperative transitions in the post-communist world. World Politics, 54, 212-244,

Munoglu, E. (2011). The impact of nationalism on democratization in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Ethnopolitics Papers, 9,

Palsdottir, B., V. (2011). Democratic transition in post-Soviet Europe: The incomplete process of democratization in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. Sigillum Universitatis Islandiae.

Protsyk, O. (2009). Federalism and democracy in Moldova. Post-Soviet Affairs,

Ragone, V. (2011). Moldova: Between political stalemate and international negotiations. Istituto per gli studi di politica internazionale, 57, 14

Tudoroiu, Th. (2011). Structural factors vs. regime change: Moldova’s difficult quest for democracy. Democratization, 18 (1), 236-264,

USAID, (2005). Moldova’s democracy and governance assessment. Retrieved from http://dss.ucsd.edu/~mshugart/ied/pdfs/moldova/usaid_moldova_assesment_2005.pdf

15