The Processes of Democratization in Latvia and Bulgaria - Essay Example

Compare and contrast the processes of democratisation in Latvia and Bulgaria. Introduction Several Eastern European nations were either a part of the erstwhile Soviet Union or were under its influence for the period starting from the World War and the Cold War. The communist regime’s monopolistic rule, the central command planning and the governments complete control of the market and the economy had led to weakening of te of the economic conditions within the region as well as encouraged a widespread demand for change (Waller, 1993). With the reform process initiated within the Soviet Union and its ultimate breakage, many Eastern Union States including Latvia gained their independence (Held, 1992), or moved away from communism, as in the case of Bulgaria (Crampton, 2007), in the early 1990s. The process of democratization was initiated in both the countries soon after and the cessation of Latvia from the Soviet Union and the voluntary change in the Bulgarian monopolistic Communist party’s ideology. Now, after almost twenty years of the democratic process, both the countries are part of the European Union, a fact indicative of their progress and success in making social and political changes. The current paper aims to analyze the process of democratization in the two countries, Latvia and Bulgaria, and to compare and contrast them on their achievements towards the same. The theoretical frameworks employed by scholars in studying the process of democratization largely fall into two categories. The first approach, called the functionalist approach, proposes that the process of democracy is brought about as a result of economic or cultural development or ushered in simply by the changing times and modernization. Another approach, called the genetic view, that is employed in studying the process of democratization is to assess the involvement of political thinkers and leaders who have contributed in bringing about a change in political thought and practice. (Vanhanen and Pridham, 1994). The present paper aims to combine both the functional as well as the genetic approach in studying and comparing the process of democratization in two Eastern European nations – Latvia and Bulgaria. In order to compare and contrast the process of democratization in the Latvia and Bulgaria, it is necessary to study the historical factors that were responsible for the process to set in as well as understand the structural changes, the social and political struggles and changes that led to the evolution of a democratic electoral system in the two countries. Democratization in the Eastern European nations was influenced by both external and internal factors. (Vanhanen and Pridham, 1994). The external factors like the reforms already started in the Soviet Union by Gorbachev and the growing awareness about the Western cultural and social and political way of life, encourages the people of the Eastern Europe to adopt democratic systems within their own national boundaries. The internal factors, like the historical background of the nation as a whole, its geographic location and economic needs, played a crucial role in promoting the process of democratization. This paper hopes to elaborate upon all the above factors and to present a comprehensive comparison of the evolution of the democratic mode of government in the two countries as well as shed light on the existing political and social establishment in them. The process of democratization includes the ensuring that the citizens have political rights in terms of free and fair elections and that the political system is available for all including different political parties and minorities. In addition it also means that there is fair and equal opportunities for all in governance and public administration and civil liberties are granted to all in the form of free media and judiciary. Democratization and democratic freedoms also include freedom to organize parties, trade unions, non-governmental organizations and equal opportunity for all in terms of education and jobs. (Nations in Transit 2000-2001, 2001) The paper will present an exhaustive analysis of the social, political, historical and economic antecedents of the democratic process and will trace the country’s performance on the same for almost 2 decades after the process was started. The current political system, democratic freedoms and civil rights of the citizens of both the nations will be explored and presented in the form of a comprehensive discussion. The paper will present Latvia Latvia gained its independence, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, in the year 1991 and was faced with the task of not only maintaining and preserving its independence but also of restructuring its political, economic and social and demographic systems which had been greatly in disarray due to its loss of sovereignty. Historically, Latvia has been ripped by the WW11 - where thousands of its citizens had died – and by the oppressive stance of the Soviet Union when scores of Latvians were deported to and killed in Siberia. The country has also seen an unprecedented influx of thousands of Russians as settlers into its lands while the native Latvians had migrated to the Western nations to seek a better life. The troubled nation, upon gaining its independence had the mammoth task of creating an environment of safety and security and also providing for the economic and social sustenance of its citizens. Further, Latvia at the time of independence had distinct ethnic minorities like Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians and Germans and it became a substantial task to integrate them in the national fold. (Berglund, 2004). Latvia, like other Eastern European nations in the late twentieth century, had a past nation and memory of sovereign past that provided a base for developing a national identity for the future. (Blejer and Skreb, 2001). After independence, a Parliamentary system was adopted where a 100 member Saeima was directly elected by the people of Latvia, and this Saeima elects a President and an executive body. The democratic system ensures that the elections are contested by multiple parties and people have a direct say in chossing who governs them. Latvia already had had a brush with democracy when in the 1920s when the country had declared itself as a democratic parliamentary republic and had joined the League of Nations. The roots of economic, political and social reforms had started with the governments’ initiative of re-distribution of land to the farmers and restructuring its agricultural resources. This made Latvia a major supplier of dairy products and pork in Europe. Education was made compulsory so that the war torn nation could have a generate a pool of educated citizens, and a national currency was introduced to stabilize the financial situation in Latvia. Acknowledging the needs of the ethnic minorities, they were granted educational and cultural autonomy and provisions were made for their proportionate representation in the government. (Berglund, 2004). However, the process of democratization suffered a set back when the Soviet Union first established a military base within the country and later took complete control of Latvia. With long and arduous struggle, Latvia finally gained independence in 1991 and resolved to move away from the influence of communism and make itself attractive to the Western world in order to gain accession to the European Union. With this objective in mind, the government initiated a process of reforms that mainly followed the line of the 1920s reforms – land redistribution, and integration of the ethnic minorities. Its democratization process was however hampered by widespread corruption in government and by the presence of an inefficient and corrupt judiciary. Though efforts like the establishment of the Corruption Bureau were undertaken, they proved inadequate to change the perception of corruption. On the social front, Latvia took several initiatives to provide education and employment to its people. The Latvian constitution saw several amendments in order to remove discrimination against the non-ethnic Latvians in employment and citizenship related issues. (Lane and Myant, 2007). However, the country continued to see a net immigration and have a negative birth rate over the years, had high income disparities and high rates of unemployment amidst some regions. (Crampton, 1997). Latvia initiated reforms in its agriculture sector to curb subsidies and redistribute and restructure land holdings. It also started a program of privatization in its industrial sector that led to private investment and brought foreign investors. (Crampton, 1997). The nation offered optimum manufacturing outsourcing for the Western world as it had skilled labor force ready to work at a lower price than in most European states. The Latvian native exports found a greater spread in the European markets, especially its production of electrical machinery.The privatization drive led to an influx of both indigenous and foreign investment in the service sector including knowledge and IT related services that have made rapid strides in the country. The economic reforms were accompanied by financial and fiscal reforms, though the country faced a banking crisis in 1994, and later was affected by the collapse of the Russian economy in 1998. (Held, 1992). However, Latvia had shown resilience and moved ahead with its liberalization policy and shown sustainable growth over the past 17 years. Bulgaria Bulgaria came under the influence of communism soon after the World War 2 when the Red Army moved into its territories and forced its Tsar Simone II into exile. As a result of this, the Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP) came to gain a full power over the nation. The BCP under its leader Todor Zhivkov, brought about a complete emulation of the Russian model of governance and economic and social life, and in the next 40 years, brought about a complete disarray in terms of economic turmoil and civil discordance. (Belll, 2006). Bulgaria has seen a phased and slow transition from the complete totalitarian system of life to a democratic one spread over a period of a period of almost two decades. (Crampton, 2006). Its transition period started with Peter Miladenov taking over from Zhivkov, and with the sanction of opposition parties to play a role in the Bulgarian governance. The BCP further reformed itself to move away from hardcore communism towards socialism, changed its name to Bulgarian Socialist Part or BSP. The political reforms were followed by efforts to make the Bulgarian society more equitable and unified by revoking all anti-Turkish legislations. The Turks, who formed a minority in Bulgaria had been traditionally subjected to discrimination by the governments in Bulgaria and their plight had been seen as a cause of concern by the International community. (Belll, 2006). The multi-party elections that ensued led to the formation of the Grand National Assembly with Miladenov as its President. The collapse of the CMEA or the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance – with which Bulgaria had the largest trade ties; and the onset of the sanctions against Iraq – that made Iraq default on its debt to Bulgaria; led to economic crisis within Bulgaria that led to political turmoil and brought about several changes of leaderships. However, some landmark gains were attained in terms of laying down a ground map for bringing about civil, economic and political liberties. An agreement was signed by all the political parties in 1990, that guaranteed a peaceful transition to democracy with a new constitution, and efforts were made to amend legislation so that a market economy could be introduced in Bulgaria. (Belll, 2006). Towards opening up the Bulgarian economy, the government removed price controls and raised interest rates, and started privatizing the land that had earlier been usurped by the state. (Roger and Pontin, 1997) With the dismantling of the previous totalitarian political set up and coming to power of the Union of Democratic Forum (UDF) government, an unsuccessful attempt was made to usher in economic and social reforms. (Crampton, 2006). The reform process was however marred by delays and disputes and even the new constitution that provided for a direct election of the Bulgarian president, was delayed. In 1992, with the election of Filip Dimitrov as the President of Bulgaria, further reforms were introduced within the country. With help and guidance from the International Monetary Fund, he introduced bank reforms, placed curbs on government expenditure and passed legislation that allowed foreign investment and furthered the land privatization process. (Belll, 2006). He even attempted to forge relationships with the Western nations and was successful in getting Bulgaria admitted to the Council of Nations and also to enter into an association agreement with the European Community (later, called as the European Union). However, these achievements were mired by the external events like discontent in Yugoslavia that affected Bulgaria’s international image, and also by internal strife of the Turks. The next steps towards democratization were taken by the Berev government that encouraged Western firms to enter into joint ventures with Bulgarian organizations and also got the country’s foreign debt reduced by half. Bulgaria obtained the status of the most favored nation (MFN) by the United States, and signed an free-trade agreement with European Free Trade Association (EFTA), both these acts contributing considerably to the economic health of Bulgaria. (Belll, 2006). The Berev government also furthered the land privatization reforms and also brought about much desired reforms in the judiciary that opened up the upper ranks of judiciary to non-communists. (Crampton, 2006). The economic reforms that were introduced till now had a fall out in terms of perpetrating a financial crisis in 1996, marked by failure of banks, drastic depreciation of the Lev, the national currency, and spiraling inflation (Roger and Pontin, 1997). The situation slowly normalized with the setting up of a currency board that linked Lev to the German currency. The real transition towards a more open system of social and economic life was initiated with the Rostov government between 1997 and 2001. (Crampton, 2006). Initiatives were taken to further upgrade the life of the ethnic Turks by providing for their educational and language requirements and privatization was encouraged so that more foreign investment could flow within the country. However, some privatization initiatives like the divestment of the state tobacco group - that was feared to lead to unemployment among Turks – and divestment of Belgrade Telecommunications Company, were bitterly contested and the judiciary interfered to prevent the privatization. Further, in its objective of gaining the membership of NATO and EU, the government had agreed to close down its Nuclear Power plants that led to price rise of electricity and energy shortage. Several of the government’s democratization initiatives, were therefore instrumental in leading to civil unrest within the country. (Belll, 2006). The economic growth also brought about an uneven wealth distribution, unemployment and also led to the migration of about a million of the Bulgarians seeking better life to other countries. (Belll, 2006). However, the stability that the Bulgaria gained helped it to carry forward the process of democratization and led the nation to become a member of NATO in 2004 and of the European Union in 2007. (Crampton, 2006). Summary Latvia and Bulgaria embarked on a process of democratization soon after the Soviet Union was dissolved. Both the nations’ initiative of moving away from the communist ideals towards a more Western form of polity and society and economy was largely guided by their aspirations to join the European Union as well as to gain position of acceptance with the United States of America and gain accession to NATO. Both the countries, guided by these long term objectives initiated the process of reform, though both had distinct antecedent conditions as well as outcomes of the process. While Latvia already had had a taste of the democracy and economic and social freedom when it had declared its independence in the 1920, Bulgaria had never before been out of the communist influence. As a result, both the nations greatly differed in the approach their leaders took to bring about democratization as well as in the problems that they faced on the way. Right from the onset, Latvia had a strong parliamentary system in place that provided for regular elections and steady leadership at the helm. Its political parties had a consensus on the benefits of the democratization and the reform process and this helped the nation in streamlining its reform process and in ensuring a continuity over the extended time, irrespective of who the current government was. (Berglund and Dellenbrant, 1994). On the other hand, the Bulgarian polity was marred with turmoil, with different parties favoring communism, socialism and capitalism and hence changing the agenda of the democratic process intermittently. Both the nations introduced economic liberalization and attracted foreign investment in their domestic industries and services – thus binging about a change in the lifestyle of their respective populations. Both amended their financial systems, promoted privatization, and took initiatives to provide employment and education for its people. However, more often than not, Bulgarians were faced with a situation of crisis, like the financial crisis of 1996 and the failure of banks (Roger and Pontin, 1997), which further impeded their democratization process. Latvia, on the other side, proved more resilient and steadily progressed in spite of a banking crisis in 1994. While a similar set of reforms were introduced in both the countries – agricultural including land redistribution and subsidy controls, economic like privatization of nationally held industries and services, and social like integration of their ethnic minorities – the process was paced differently in both. In Latvia, the pace of the economic and political democratization was steady and successful from the onset, while in Bulgaria these reforms were mired by civil unrest and political turmoil. However, on the social front, Latvia was still unable to fully control discrimination against its ethnic Russian residents and also failed to curb income disparities that led to large scale immigration from Latvia. Bulgaria had better success in integrating its ethnic Turks by providing for their language and cultural freedom and encouraging them to participate in the economic gains. The available literature on both countries however shows consensus that both the nations have made substantial progress in the past two decades, a fact acknowledge by their entry to the European Union. Reference: Waller, M. 1993. The End of the Communist Power Monopoly The Manchester University Press: Held, J. (ed.) 1992. The Columbia History of Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century Columbia University Press: NY. Crampton, R.J., Bulgaria, 2007, pp.174, Oxford University Press Vanhanen, T. and G. Pridham, 1994. Democratization in Eastern Europe Routledge. Taylor & Francis Freedom House, Nations in Transit 2000-2001 (2001) Kaldor, M. and I. Vejvoda, 1998. Democratization in Central and Eastern Europe Continuum International Publishing Group: London Crampton, R.J , 1997. Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century-and After. Routledge. NY. Crampton, R.J , 2006. “A concise History of Bulgaria”. Cambridge University Press: USA Bell, I. (ed.). 2006 “Bulgaria” Central and South-Eastern Europe. Routledge: London Roger E. and J. Pontin. 1997. Revolution and Change in Central and Eastern Europe. Pinter Publishers Ltd: London Berglund, S. J. Ekman and F. H. Aarebrot. 2004. The Handbook of Political Change in Eastern Europe. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.: UK Blejer, M. I. and M. Skreb. Ed. 2001. Transition: The First Decade. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: USA. Berglund S. and J. Å. Dellenbrant. 1994. The New Democracies in Eastern Europe: Party Systems and Political Cleavages(Studies of Cleavages in Transition. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd: UK Lane, D. and M.R. Myant. Ed. 2007. Varieties of Capitalism in Post-communist Countries. Palgrave Macmillan: UK Read More