|
|
Southeast European
Politics Online
Democratisation,
Democracy and Ethnic Conflicts in the Balkans
ZLATKO ISAKOVIC
Introduction;
Download
complete article in PDF 
Introduction
Observing
the Balkan states (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Greece, Macedonia, Romania, Turkey and Yugoslavia) one can distinguish
several criteria for their classification. From the perspective of the
topic of this paper their most important feature seems to be that they
all have and take part in more or less similar and sometimes mutual
ethnic conflicts. Second, a great majority of these states are in
certain stages of the post-communist democratisation process.
The
classic theory of democracy has examined the issue of ethnicity in
politics mostly periodically, and in a cursory manner. Since the end of
the Cold War the interest of many scholars has been focused either on
the security aspects of ethnic conflicts (ethnic aspects of security in
the region) or merely on political aspects of the transition toward
democracy (i.e. its general pattern). This is a scholarly attempt to
combine these two approaches, i.e. to explore the ethnic conflict and
its impact on the democratisation process and democracy and vice
versa in the context of the Balkan states and conditions. In
addition, the issue of ethnic conflict and its elimination for a long
time has been terra incognita for scholars in these countries.
Present-day researchers seem more attracted by the security situation in
the Balkan region, while the possibilities of conflict elimination
within the context of democratisation and vice versa are mostly
overlooked or even ignored.
According
to definitions, democracy is rule by majority as well as a procedure
used for the non-violent elimination of political, economic conflicts
and other discrepancies in positions, i.e. interests in society.
However, sometimes, even without violating or abusing one of the
procedures mentioned, one party in the conflict is dissatisfied or
merely partly satisfied with the decisions. This shows that the conflict
has not been fully resolved (and in this way eliminated), that it has
been ‘resolved’ in just a formal and not in an essential regard.
Conflict
in general could be defined as dynamic and manifest conflict processes
consisting of certain phases. In this case the term conflict is used in
a more specific meaning: a political process (dynamic situation) in
which engaged parties have incompatible attitudes and behaviors.
Internal as well as international conflicts have three interrelated
components: (1) conflict situation, manifested in expressing various
political aims or conflict of interest (see Galtung, 1990: 247) that
cannot be simultaneously achieved and for that reason can be qualified
as mutually exclusive; (2) conflict behavior (in the first place aimed
at achieving the aforementioned political aims); and (3) conflicting
attitudes and perceptions having an emotional dimension (feeling of
anger, mistrust, fear, scorn, hatred, etc.) as well as a cognitive
dimension (maintenance of certain stereotypes and beliefs regarding the
opposite side) (compare: Michell, 1981: 29). As has been noted, one
should stay away from the notion that conflict behavior should always be
something that must be stopped. Moreover, it should not be assumed that
conflict in a wider sense of the term is something that should be
necessarily avoided (Wiberg, 1998: 176).
The
collapse of communism and the re-emergence of a number of small,
multiethnic and easy to manipulate states, which have rather poor
democratic traditions (partly thanks to the fact that many of them were
born in war conditions), represented two earthshaking events. They
heavily influenced the re-emergence of numerous ethnic conflicts and
tensions within the states as well as in interstate relations in the
region and beyond. For instance, in addition to the four ethnic
conflicts in the former Yugoslavia (Serb-Croatian in Croatia,
Serb-Moslem, and Serb-Croatian in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Serb-Albanian
in Serbia), there are now four new conflicts (Moslem-Croatian in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonian-Albanian, Macedonian-Bulgarian and
Macedonian-Greek) and several potential intra-state and international
conflicts of successor states. Slovenia used to be a member of the
Serb-Croatian conflict in Croatia in 1991. Since that time Slovenia has
been the only conflict-free successor state that managed to establish
relatively stable and democratic interethnic relations. This is seen as
one concrete way of overcoming the Balkan legacies as well as a concrete
contribution to peace in the region and beyond.
The
situation in the Balkans has a special weight for the prospects of
European security and European integration, which—according to some
authors’ beliefs—could
be effectively thwarted by ethnic conflicts. It seems that the basic
reasons for this belief came from already clearly demonstrated
manifestations of nationalism and chauvinism as elementary and general
indicators and generators of ethnic conflicts in Europe and elsewhere.
This belief is further corroborated by the inclination toward
establishing ethnically pure states, confinement to one’s own borders,
national particularism, selfishness, xenophobia or hegemonism,
domination, authoritarian rule over other nations or parts of them, and
so on.
The
formal and substantive aspects of the democratisation process itself in
the respective countries seem to be equally important. Formal democracy
could be understood as a set of rules, procedures and institutions.
These include such things as inclusive citizenship, rule of law, separation
of powers, elected power-holders, free and fair elections, freedom of
expression and alternative sources of information, associational
autonomy, and civilian control over the security forces. Key features of
substantive democracy could be taken as the following: (a) the character
of constitutions and the way in which human rights are perceived; (b)
the role of political parties and the extent to which they provide a
vehicle for political participation; (c) the role of media and the
extent to which they are capable of introducing a broad political
debate; (d) whether and how far the administration is able to transform
itself into a genuine public service in which individuals have trust;
(e) the extent to which local government is able to manage local
concerns and respond to them; (f) the existence of an active civil
society, in the sense of independent associations and institutions able
to point out the abuse of state power, etc. Thus, one could examine the
political systems, for example, of the newly democratized countries of
the Balkan region, and in this context, one could make the distinction
between formal and substantive democracy in order to evaluate the
development of key facets of democratic practices in these countries.
The political systems of observed countries constitute, at least in some
cases, a particular variant of democracy; it is a sui generis
political model influenced both by the legacy of communism and by
strengths and weaknesses of modern and historical features of Western
democracy, including their nationalistic and even chauvinistic elements.
|
