Democratization and Disintegration in Multinational States: The Breakup of the Communist Federations

Abstract

One of the challenges presented to democratization theory by the collapse of communist regimes is the need to take into account the impact of ethnonational diversity on the processes of transition. This article explores that question in a comparative analysis of the dissolutions of the multinational federations of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union. It revisits what has been a core—although usually unarticulated—premise of the democratization literature: that the decisions and negotiations that critically shape regime transition occur in a single, central political arena, a political space common to all actors. In contrast to that perspective, the strategic political context for transition in multinational states differs both from that in homogeneous states and from that in unitary multinational states, in offering multiple arenas of political contestation. The implication for democratization in multinational states is that, depending on the institutional structure of the state, regime change may occur at different rates in different substate political arenas—the republics—in such a way as to trigger the erosion of central control over the transition. Where democratization theory has emphasized strategic choice conditioned by the balance of power between regime and opposition actors, an accounting of the politics of transition in ethnofederal states must emphasize (1) strategic choices by actors in multiple political arenas and (2) the shifting balance of power between center and republics.

Decentralization: Fueling the Fire or Dampening the Flames of Ethnic Conflict and Secessionism?

“…index of democracy+ 5+ See Hardgrave 1994;Kymlicka 1998;andDikshit 1975+ 6+ See Horowitz 1991;Lijphart, Rogowski, and Weaver 1993;Nordlinger 1972;andSuberu 1994+ 7+ See Bunce 1999;Kymlicka 1998;Leff 1999;Snyder 2000;and Roeder 1991+ 8+ See Chhibber and Kollman 1998and 2002 and Brancati forthcoming+ Regional parties, in turn, increase ethnic conflict and secessionism by reinforcing regionally based ethnic identities, producing legislation that favors certain groups over others, and mobilizing groups to engage in ethnic conflict and secessionism or by supporting terrorist organizations that participate in these activities+ Several scholars have noted how particular regional parties may produce these effects+ 9 But only a few scholars have made claims about regional parties more generally and only in terms of their effect on ethnic identities+ 10 None of these scholars, moreover, have recognized the link between decentralization and regional parties+…”

“…The methodological approach of this article advances previous studies of decentralization and regional parties+ Most studies of decentralization explore the effect of decentralization on ethnic conflict and secessionism using either illustrations of different countries to demonstrate their arguments or qualitative case study analysis+ 11 While useful for generating interesting ideas about decentralization, these illustrations and case studies do not provide strong evidence of their claims+ Most of the case studies are also selected on the dependent variable+ That is, the majority of studies claiming that decentralization decreases ethnic conflict and secessionism are based on successful examples of decentralization, 12 while the majority of studies claiming that decentralization increases ethnic conflict and secessionism are based on failed examples of decentralization in East Central Europe+ 13 Most analysis of regional parties are similarly limited because they are based on either certain regional parties, such as the Scottish National Party in the United Kingdom or the Northern League in Italy, 14 or on certain regions of countries, such as the Basque Country and Catalonia in Spain or the Northeast region in India+ 15 Some studies even focus on particular regional party leaders, such as Umberto Bossi of the Northern League 16 or Slobodan Miloševic of the Socialist Party of Serbia+ 17 As a result, these works only draw conclusions about particular regional parties and their leaders, and not regional parties more generally+ In this analysis I try to theorize more generally about the effects of decentralization and regional parties on ethnic conflict and secessionism and to rigorously test these claims through a large-N statistical analysis of thirty countries around the world from 1985 to 2000+ This analysis is based on an original data set of constituency-level election results, which allows me to measure the strength of 9+ See Banerjee 1984;Bhatnagar and Kumar 1998;Gassah 1992;andKumar 1986+ 10+ See de Winter andTürsan 1998;andKeating 1998+ 11+ See Horowitz 1991;Kymlicka 1998;Nordlinger 1972;Ornstein and Coursen 1992;Snyder 2000;Brubaker 1996;Bunce 1999;Leff 1999;and Roeder 1991+ 12+ See Lijphart 1981and 1996+ 13+ See Bunce 1999Leff 1999;andRoeder 1991+ 14+ See Newell 1998;Christiansen 1998;Tarchi 1998;andMarcet and…”

The Makeup and Breakup of Ethnofederal States: Why Russia Survives Where the USSR Fell

“…96 Paradoxically, the unity of such states may well hinge upon sustaining or even augmenting their internal division. 1 Bunce 1998;Bunce 1999;Leff 1999. 2 For example, Kapuscinski 1994.…”

“…5 Calls for ethnofederalism for Afghanistan can be found in Shahrani 2001 and for Iraq in Rubin 2002 andSlevin 2002. 6 On the postcommunist cases, see Brubaker 1996;Bunce 1998;Bunce 1999;Crawford 1998;Laitin 1998;Lapidus 1992;Leff 1999;Roeder 1991Roeder , 1999Slezkine 1994;A. Smith 1992;Suny 1993.…”

The other ‘other’: Party responses to immigration in eastern Europe

“…Anti-communist forces adopt right-wing economic views, while pushing for national autonomy and finally national independence. Simultaneously, in these countries, left parties have a historical association with multinationalism, as the communist federal regime managed and co-opted ethnic minorities, engaging them through various power-sharing mechanisms (see Leff, 1999;Zakosek, 2000). The left thus adopts multinational outlooks, potentially turning into the representatives of ethnic minorities.…”