A Long, Brown Shadow? The Impact of Non-Democratic Legacies on the Environment in Portugal and Bulgaria

Abstract

Legacies of non-democratic rule influence and direct many decisions and actions within democratising political systems as institutions, procedures and policies are reformed. This article is concerned with the effect of legacies on environmental politics in democratising states. Democratic political systems are better equipped to address environmental concerns than their non-democratic counterparts; democratisation is therefore expected to lead to improvements. To assess the effect of non-democratic legacies the cases of Portugal and Bulgaria have been selected, as they experienced different forms of non-democratic rule, identifying general outcomes. The results indicate that democratisation does lead to improvements in environmental politics, with the extent and course of change being mediated by the legacy of the preceding political system.

Political Opportunity Structures in Dictatorships? Explaining ENGO Existence in Autocratic Regimes

“…In general, therefore, “non-democratic regimes … rely on centralized control structures that are less receptive” to external influences and they are more restrictive (O’Brien, 2009, p. 308). Moreover, “a broad set of political constraints and opportunities are significant for the development of social movements” (Nomura, 2007, p. 497; see also Kitschelt, 1986; McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald, 1988, 1996; Tarrow, 1998).…”

“…Consequently, Nomura (2007) stressed that ENGOs faced severe repression under the Marcos regime, which only allowed “sporadic action” at best (p. 497). Finally, O’Brien (2009) claimed that the personalist regimes of Salazar and Caetano in Portugal placed massive restrictions on the establishment of independent interest groups, including ENGOs. In light of this discussion, I formulate the following testable hypotheses:Hypothesis 1 (H1): Due to a relatively low level of governmental repression and, thus, better political opportunity structures, there are likely to be more ENGOs in single-party regimes than in other autocracies.Hypothesis 2 (H2): Due to a relatively high level of governmental repression, and, thus, worse political opportunity structures, there are likely to be fewer ENGOs in personalist regimes than in other autocracies.Hypothesis 3 (H3): Due to a higher level of repression than in single-party regimes (but lower than in military regimes), there are likely to be fewer ENGOs in monarchies than in single-party regimes (but more than in military regimes or personalist regimes).Hypothesis 4 (H4): Due to a lower level of repression than in personalist regimes (but higher than in monarchies), there are likely to be more ENGOs in military regimes than in personalist regimes (but fewer ENGOs than in single-party regimes or monarchies).…”

Environmental Democratisation: Assessing the Impact of Democratisation on Environmental Capacity in South and Southeastern Europe

“…The 1991 Constitution acknowledged state responsibility (Article 15) and citizen rights (Article 55) in relation to the environment. 3 This was followed by the Environmental Protection Law, which aimed to standardise practices and establish a framework for subsequent regulations (O'Brien, 2009a). 4 Specific sectoral laws were subsequently introduced to build on the framework law in areas of air, 5 water, 6 environmental impact assessments (EIA) 7 and protected territories.…”

“…9 The focus on economic modernisation also restricted the emergence of environmental policies. In 1987, the Environment Basic Act 10 (EBA) was introduced to act as a framework that legislation could build upon (see O'Brien, 2009a). Teresa Ribeiro and Valdemar Rodrigues (1997) argue that the character and content of the EBA reflected the outcome of the 1997 UN Brundtland Report and was aligned with emerging EU policies.…”

Sustaining Regional Environmental NGOs in Latin America and Eastern Europe: Considering the Experience of the FARN and the REC

“…The threat faced by REC from increasing domestic capacity can be illustrated with the case of Bulgaria When Bulgaria began the democratisation process in 1989, it had a weak civil society and a legacy of environmental degradation from the communist period (Baker & Baumgartl, 1998). During the 1990s the state developed and introduced a range of legislative tools to address environmental concerns and developed the formal capacity to address these, although it continued to be hampered by the legacies of the communist period (O'Brien, 2009b). At the same time, the environmental NGO sector continued to develop and strengthen as a result of increasing opportunities for participation (Cellarius & Staddon, 2002).…”