Democracy between Ethnos and Demos

Abstract

Much of the political science literature suggests that a cohesive political community is advantageous-if not a precondition-for a stable democracy. Forging a cohesive community is obviously a more complex matter in a multi-ethnic setting. This article will consider the prospects of building political communities in the Baltic countries-three countries that, to various extents, struggle to balance ethnic pluralism, nation building, and democracy. The article examines the relationship between political community and democracy from a theoretical perspective, followed by an outline of the nation-building strategies taken by estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania after re-establishing independence in the early 1990s. Drawing on survey data, we use territorial attachment to tap the sense of political community in the three countries. Notably, our figures disclose that most of the Russian-speaking minorities in estonia and Latvia identify themselves as "Russians," and not at all with the country they reside in. This suggests that the contested issue of citizenship rights in the two countries has not been particularly conducive for creating cohesive political communities. We then move to the political regime and set out to examine the character of regime support in the three countries. Can we envisage solid support for democracy and its institutions in the absence of a cohesive political community? as it appears, regime support is not contingent on territorial identity. Our data disclose that many Baltic inhabitants draw a clear distinction between their own experiences with different political systems and what they perceive as relevant regime options today.

Political dejection in a divided society: a challenge for Latvia’s democracy?

“…Consequently, the electorate's confidence in the ability of their representatives to translate popular concerns into policy has plummeted. In the past, citizens' endorsement of democratic principles (Duvold and Berglund 2014), a market economy (Cianetti 2018), individual liberties (Cianetti and Nakai 2017), and ethnonational state-building (Ījabs 2016; Kaprāns and Mieriņa 2019) have been used to predict political participation individually, but not in combination with one another. In the analysis that follows, we draw these discrete observations together.…”

“…Studying dejection -low trust in political institutions coupled with electoral disengagement -across the ethnic divide in Latvia allows us to explain the low level of public engagement with the central institution of democracy, parliamentary elections. Previous research on the region (Rose, Berglund, and Munro 2005;Duvold and Berglund 2014) has demonstrated that uneven relationships between the ethnic majorities and minorities are accepted by both groups because of the democratic consolidation in (what has become) the Latvian national state. Linking electoral participation with trust in democratic institutions additionally allows us to explore the salience of ethnonational state-building for political participation across this divided society.…”

Discursive Narration of the Collective Self in the International Speeches of the Baltic Presidents

“…It has come to be accepted as a general truth that national identities are fluid and artificial rather than natural and static entities. Since the end of the twentieth century, numerous scholars have emphasized that national identities are constantly negotiated through discourse as a type of social practice (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). Thus, not only can discourse shape the narratives of national identity but also various elements of these national identities and multiple other co-existing identities such as individual, sub-group, supra-national and global identities may shape the discourse of particular actors leading to a never-ending circular process of the discursive identification and negotiation of the self and the other.…”

Social origins of support for democracy: a study of intergenerational mobility

“…Three Baltic States -Estonia, Lithuania and Latviahave diverged with their democratisation paths from other former Soviet republics since gaining independence in 1991. Although they have experienced significant advances towards full democratisation, Latvia and Estonia due to their multi-ethnic population compositions struggled to balance ethnic pluralism, nation building, and democracy (Duvold & Berglund, 2014).…”