De Facto States and Democracy: The Case of Abkhazia

Abstract

Abstract. De-facto states constitute an interesting and important anomaly in the international system of sovereign states. No matter how successful and efficient in the administration of their territories they are, they fail to achieve international recognition. In the past, their claims for independence were based primarily on the right to national self-determination, historical continuity and claim for a remedial right to secession, based on alleged human-rights violations. Since 2005, official representatives of several de facto states have repeatedly emphasised the importance of democracy promotion in their political entities. A possible explanation of this phenomenon dwells in the belief that those states which have demonstrated their economic viability and promote the organization of a democratic state should gain their sovereignty. This article demonstrates the so called "democracy-for-recognition strategy" in the case study of Abkhazia. On the basis of the field research in Abkhazia we identify factors that promote, as well as those that obstruct the democratisation process in the country.

The Dynamics of Social Movements in Unrecognized States—A Comparative Study

“…The literature on the democratization of unrecognized states has produced four frameworks that can help understand the role pro-democracy movements may play in unrecognized states. Ulas's framework (Ulas, 2017, 427-35), which will be adopted in this study, is largely a synthesis of the other three frameworks proposes by Caspersen, Kopecek et al, and Voller (Caspersen, 2011b;Voller, 2015;Kopeček et al, 2016) together with theories of democratization. According to the framework, unrecognized states (and any other state suffering a similar condition) experience-at least at inception-acute threat perceptions which push towards hyper-militarization, repression of dissent, and the systemic promotion of internal unity.…”

“…The initial state of democracy in Abkhazia was questionable at best, as the 2002 elections saw the withdrawal of opposition groups in protest of pre-election manipulations by the regime (Bakke et al, 2014;Kopeček et al, 2016). Such manipulation was especially evident in the frequent dissemination of progovernment propaganda through the state-controlled media organizations (Bakke et al, 2014;Kopeček et al, 2016). Moreover, the first President of Abkhazia, Ardzinba, who was first inaugurated in 1994, retained his presidency through elections where he ran as the sole candidate.…”

“…Interestingly, the candidates supported by Russian president Vladimir Putin as well as ex-President Ardzinba would fail to win the election, losing to the opposition candidate Sergei Bagapsh. The new government faced Russian pressure to include Russia-friendly politicians in the cabinet and had to cave in due to the aforementioned level of Abkhaz dependence on Russia for economic and military survival (Kopeček et al, 2016).…”

Transnistria’s Order of Friendship: Legitimacy Through Diplomatic Practice

“…For example, as Transnistria's population overwhelmingly supports a political alignment with Russia, the government's strategic focus on close ties to its patron state can be seen as a reflection of popular will. Moreover, de facto states have recently placed discursive emphasis on their governance, rule of law and transparency with the implicit claim that they finally 'earned' sovereignty in a 'democratisation-forrecognition strategy' (Caspersen 2008;Voller 2015;Kopeček et al 2016). In Transnistria, an officially sanctioned narrative of multi-ethnicity is part of this rhetorical commitment to democratic values (Kopeček et al 2016, p. 89), as illustrated by the solemn preamble of the constitution, which starts with the words 'We, [the] multinational people of the Transnistrian Moldavian Republic, united by a common fate on our land'.…”

The diplomacy of post-Soviet de facto states: ontological security under stigma

“…104 The identity transformation is necessary because the current state of affairs -the stigma -does not satisfy the de facto states. The stigma does not enact a feeling of belonging, but of isolation and of one-sided dependence, 105 hindering an attachment to their adversarial relationship with the international society. Reconfiguring their identities via diplomatic practices sustainably generates friendly, de-securitized relationships with others, 106 with the goal that its routinization would lead to (at least weakly) recognized membership in the international society.…”