Changing Paradigms in the Study of Post-Communist Politics? The Comparative Dimension of Central and Eastern Europe

Section Chairs: Zdenka Mansfeldova (Institute of Sociology CAS Prague) zdenka.mansfeldova@soc.cas.cz Clara Volintiru (Bucharest University of Economic Studies) clara.volintiru@gmail.com The research on Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) still struggles to become an integral part of mainstream comparative politics. Quite often research on various facets of post-communism limits itself to comparisons between countries in the region or to other democratizing regimes in the neighborhood and research output remains isolated to area journals. In a longitudinal perspective, one of the main problems lies in the framing of research problems along three paradigms that may have exhausted their explanatory power: the post-communist transformation, communist legacy, and the democratization process. The first generation of CEE research focused on the complex process of the triple transition (economic, political and statehood), the trajectories of change (the difference between CEE, South East Europe and post-Soviet states), outcomes of transition (democratic and authoritarian regimes), and the stability of the newly established regimes. The post-communist states were compared to each other within the ‘third wave' as well as to previous transformation countries (Southern Europe, Latin America). A second paradigm in the study of CEE politics is the communist legacy and its path-dependence. From a comparative perspective, this notion limits the scope of comparison and is used to justify exceptionality and the necessity to compare post-communist countries among each other. The elements of historicism continue to shape the study of post-communist politics. The strength of this paradigm is the ability to explain variation within the cases. The third paradigm is that of democratization and offers the largest comparative scope, opening up the possibility to compare post-communism with other world regions. It acknowledged the specific character of communist regimes, but offset these by the commitment of elites to ‘return to democracy', thus created ground for cross-regional comparison. One subset of this paradigm is Europeanization, which focused on the effects of external actors – most importantly the EU on the latter stages of democratization (consolidation and thereafter). The weakness of this approach is the focus on similarities and thus need to underplay the variation among CEE countries. A newly emerging paradigm emphasizes the need to focus on contextualizing in broader cross-national comparison. It looks at the diversion of transitional trajectories over time, illiberal turn. Both communism and post-communism are viewed as temporary stages in a broader historical development. The focus here is on elite and public preferences, nature of political competition, behavioral patterns and emerging (and transforming political culture). Within this approach, the importance and influence of communism and post-communist might vary across topics. This Section follows this fourth paradigm by bringing together scholars focusing on CEE politics and to provide a platform for an open dialogue and cooperation. The main aim of this section is to examine the paradigmatic shift in the study of post-communist politics and to assess the comparative dimension of CEE across various subfields of comparative politics. To this end, it gathers Panels from a number of areas such as political parties, participation, civil society, minorities, public opinion, clientelism, corruption, etc. We encourage a mix of theoretical papers with solid arguments, methodological approaches meant to measure the processes and phenomena in CEE, and empirical papers bringing evidence (preferably in a comparative manner). CV of Section Chairs: Dr. Zdenka Mansfeldová Zdenka is a senior researcher, head of the Department of the Sociology of Politics and Deputy Director of the Institute of Sociology, Czech Academy of Sciences. She was a Karl-Deutsch visiting professor at Social Science Centre Berlin, held several fellowships and visiting lecturer/researcher positions at universities and research institutions in Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Japan, and Taiwan. Her research focuses on political institutionalization and representation of interests in both political terms (parties and parliament) and the non-political meso-structures of social interests. She has been involved in a wide variety of national and international research projects including the Integrated Projects New Modes of Governance (NEWGOV), Integrated and United: a Quest for Citizenship in an “ever closer Europe” INTUNE, Reconstituting Democracy in Europe (RECON), and Socio-Economics meets Security (SECONOMICS) which were funded by the European Union under the Sixth and Seventh Framework Programme. Zdenka has published widely, edited/co-edited 12 books most importantly Post-communist party systems: competition, representation, and inter-party cooperation (together with Herbert Kitchelt, Gabor Toka and Radek Markowski, 1999, Cambridge University Press), numerous chapters in edited scientific volumes, as well as articles in journals such as Journal of Legislative Studies, Europe Asia Studies, Czech Sociological Review. Since July 2016 she is chair of the IPSA Research Committee 08 – Legislative Specialists. Clara Volintiru, PhD Clara is an Assistant Professor, Department of International Business and Economics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies and Senior Researcher, Freedom House Romania. She completed a Ph.D. in Political Economy at the Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies (ASE) and is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science at the Government Department, London School of Economics and Political Science. She holds an MRes in Political Science, and an MSc in Comparative Politics from LSE, an MBA from CNAM, Paris. Her research is focused on political parties in new democracies, informal politics, rule of law, corruption and institutionalism—topics covered in various articles and books. Most recently: Volintiru, C. 2016. Collection without Consent: State Building in Romania, in Sven Steinmo (ed.) The Leap of Faith: The Fiscal Foundations of Successful Government in Europe and America, Oxford University Press (forthcoming) and Gherghina, S. and Volintiru, C., 2015. A new model of clientelism: political parties, public resources, and private contributors. European Political Science Review, pp.1-23. Abstracts of proposed Panels. I. Panel title: Minority Politics in Central and South Eastern Europe Panel Chair: Dane Taleski, Ph.D., Assistant Professor (South East European University, Tetovo/Skopje) Minority politics has received great attention in studies of Central Eastern Europe (CEE) and South Eastern Europe (SEE). It has been a research topic closely inter-linked with democratization studies, and with ethnic conflict and post-conflict peacebuilding in the case of the latter region. CEE and SEE countries have served as laboratories for social and political scientists to test and develop theories for managing diversity (i.e. institutional power-sharing and vote pooling), strategies for minority mobilization (i.e. radicalization, moderation and head-counting) and to expand the theories on minority electoral competition (i.e. electoral markets' segmentation and within-group competition). Studies of minority politics in CEE and SEE made a significant contribution to comparative politics, beyond the impact on area studies. Continuing this research avenue, the Panel aims to explore existing theoretical assumptions and expectations in regards to managing diversity, minority mobilization strategies, and minority electoral competition, and bring forth novel contributions. The Panel welcomes comparative empirical Papers that look at various phenomena of minority politics in CEE and SEE countries (both cross-country and within-country analysis) and encourages theoretical and methodological diversity. II. Panel title: Populism in Central and Eastern Europe Panel Chairs: Lenka Bustikova (ASU) Discussant: Alexandra Sojka (Harvard University) Populism is a growing phenomenon across the Atlantic and Central and Eastern Europe is no exception. The Panel seeks to explore populism in CEE in a comparative perspective. What are the unique features of CEE populism when compared with populism in older democracies Western Europe or in Latin America? This Panel aims to fill this gap by investigating the core features Eastern European populism that has roots in social protection, yet is often classified as right-wing based on its identity appeals. It conceptualizes populism, as a phenomenon that transcends left and right divisions in politics. Therefore a theory of Eastern European populism needs to go beyond the simplistic positioning of parties on a left-right dimension and has to be compared with “populisms” in other democracies. This Panel welcomes comparative Papers that contribute to the broader theoretical literature on party competition, democratization, voting in newer democracies and populist political mobilization beyond Eastern Europe. III. Panel Title: Clientelism and the Rule of Law (RoL) in New Democracies Panel Chair: Clara Volintiru, Ph.D., Assistant Professor (Bucharest University of Economic Studies) Clientelism is a widespread phenomenon, in both new and old democracies. Nevertheless, in many of the new democratic settings, informal norms have had a longer time to consolidate and become normative guidelines of social interaction. Empirical studies abound in areas such as CEE, SEE, or Latin America showing the complexity of clientelistic systems of informal resource distribution. The consolidation of such informal linkages and norms of conduct often creates a tension with contemporary formal rules and regulations (i.e. Rule of Law), as well as institutional processes. As political parties no longer survive based on strong roots in society (e.g. political cartelization), the principal-agent relationship between the electorate and the politicians is often distorted, and mediated by informal brokers. In contrast, efforts to reinforce the Rule of Law, and curb corruption in developing countries have restricted the access to public resources on which clientelistic systems depended. This Panel seeks to address the question of what are the effects political clientelism and the Rule of Law can have on each other? Both qualitative and quantitative papers are welcomed, from various disciplinary backgrounds (e.g. institutionalism, party politics, public policy, public administration, democratic studies, behavioral studies), providing a comparative analysis—either across countries or within countries. IV. Panel Title: Analyzing Representative Claims in the Central and eastern European Politics: Left and Right and Beyond Panel Chair: Petra Guasti (Goethe University Frankfurt) Discussant: Mihail Chiru (University of Sibiu) The study of representation has been enjoying significant revival and transformation, in recent years, leading some authors to coin the term ‘representative turn’ in democratic theory. While the traditional representation literature focused on procedural aspects of representation, the ‘representative turn’ authors go beyond the formalistic notion of representation and concentrate on the constitutive features of representation. The similarities between claims, applied by (increasingly populist) elected representatives across the CEE region, hint to the growing irrelevance of the left-right continuum, and the need to introduce alternative approaches to the analysis of CEE politics. This Panel focuses on the newly emerging claims of representation and their justifications, in particular on issues mobilizing new actors across the CEE region: anti-globalization, women’s and feminist issues, LGBTQ rights and the refugee crisis. Theoretically, this Panel seeks to assess the extent to which the left-right and TAN-GAL distinctions are relevant for the analysis of party politics and the public discourse in the CEE politics. We welcome contributions focusing on politics beyond the ballot box and locate the study of representation in a broader context of participative and deliberative democracy. Papers ought to speak to broad current political trends and be able to touch upon big, contemporary issues directly related to representation, such as the role of inequality in political mobilization, and global challenges to pluralistic democracies. V. The state of populism in Europe: towards a fourth wave? Panel chairs: Sorina Soare (University of Florence) & Reinhard Heinisch (University of Salzburg) Discussant: Mattia Zulianello (University of Florence) Over the last decade, new populist parties have emerged across Europe. In parallel, pre-existing formations have made spectacular electoral breakthroughs. This unprecedented appeal of populism appears to have been mostly influenced by the effects of two large-scale crises, the Eurozone crisis, and the European Refugee crisis. Although to different degrees, both Western and Eastern European party systems have been challenged by this new populist Zeitgeist. Accordingly, there is an ongoing yet contradictory scholarly debate on whether it is possible to speak of the fourth wave of populism, chronologically and programmatically distinct from the previous waves acknowledged by von Beyme (1988). Although the succession of waves cannot be easily defined in temporal terms, if we aim to investigate a new wave, it is necessary to identify the salient features of the phenomenon and, subsequently, the relevant cases are taken into account. What are the specificities of the fourth wave of populism and which parties can be connected to this specific wave? As such, the focus for the Panel is on complementing the theoretical reflection on the populist politics stage with an empirical-oriented analysis dealing with the diversity of causes, issues, and consequences of the populist family in current European party politics (with a focus on comparisons between Eastern and Western cases). VI. Does power corrupt? Explaining trust in politicians in Eastern Europe Panel chairs: Peter Spac (Masaryk University Brno) & Sergiu Gherghina (Goethe University Frankfurt) Earlier studies have shown that over the last three decades citizens from European countries have decreasing levels of trust in politicians, considerably lower than in public institutions. In Eastern Europe, the low trust in politicians was not surprising in the 1990s given the high level of elite reproduction in the region. However, statistics indicate that almost three decades after the regime change the levels of trust in politicians continue to be low even when the old elites were almost completely replaced. While traditional explanations focus on the behavior (e.g. corruption) or performance of elites, other causes for variations in trust may have an attitudinal (e.g. satisfaction with democracy) or structural component. This Panel seeks to gather Papers that can address this empirical puzzle. It encourages both single case studies and comparative Papers aiming to identify and understand the determinants of the levels of trust in politicians in the region. Qualitative and quantitative contributions are equally encouraged. VII. Panel Title: Politicization of European integration in CEE. The perceptions of the EU’s policies in CEE and beyond. Chair: Dr. Magdalena Góra (Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland) Co-chair: Dr. Natasza Styczyńska (Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland) The EU as a polity and the idea of European integration – along with the illiberal turn in many of CEE countries – is becoming more contested by political actors in CEE as well as among countries that either aspires for membership or association with the EU. From the overall supportive attitudes to the idea of European integration NMS societies and their elites are developing more nuanced and critical position resulting from both domestic variables as well as crises in which the EU was entrapped in recent years. The politicization of the European integration reached the CEE-only years after the enlargement. In order to understand what is changing as regards, the perception of the EU research focus must shift into more detailed analysis of the perceptions of specific activities and policies of the EU. The main interest on this panel is to discuss how – specifically on the elite level – the various EU policies are perceived and contested and how this contribute to understanding the developments in European politics. The papers gathered in the panel look also beyond the EU member states and focus on the external perceptions from the elites in neighbouring countries such as Ukraine where the EU activities are resonating with the society in a crisis context. In this dimension, the panel will contribute to the section paradigm shift debate by comparing CEE cases with other non-EU members in the region. VIII. Panel Title: Ministers and cabinets in Central and Eastern Europe Chair: Elena Semenova (Free University) Discussant: Vello Pettai (Tartu University TBC) The Panel examines developments in cabinet formation and ministerial selection across Central and Eastern European countries. Post-communist countries have recently been experiencing dramatic changes in political competition caused, among others, by the emergence of new populist parties, the consequences of the 2008 financial crisis as well as the growing public discontent with democracy. All these developments affect the party government principles of cabinet formation and reflect the changing patterns of ministerial selection such as the increased number of technocratic governments staffed with non-partisan ministers. However, not all CEE countries were affected by these developments to the same extent. This Panel aims to identify a variety of developments in a cabinet and ministerial selection and the effects thereof on policy outcomes and political competition in a cross-country, cross-regional and historical perspective. In particular, the Panel aims to contribute to comparative politics by identifying the implications and the relevance of findings on changing ministerial selection and cabinet formation in CEE for other regions (also beyond Europe). The Panel invites empirical Paper on cabinet formation and ministerial selection in various groups of post-communist countries (e.g., EU member states versus others), also in a longitudinal perspective. It also welcomes theoretical papers on ministerial selection and its outcomes in the changing political environment. IX. Panel Title: The Decline of National Parliaments” (in cooperation with IPSA RC 08 Legislative Specialists) Chair: Zdenka Mansfeldová (Institute of Sociology CAS) Discussant: Hilmar Rommetvedt (IRES, Norway) The processes of globalization and Europeanization (limited to the EU) fundamentally influence the roles and functioning of national parliaments. A crucial set of issues relates to legitimacy, representation, and accountability. Electoral and political participation continue to wane, negatively affecting input legitimacy, the ability of the national parliaments legislate is limited by supranational rules, their input into supranational (i.e. for Europe EU) legislation procedurally constrained. In the wake of growing populism and calls for direct democracy, we ask – are we seeing the inevitable decline of representative democracy and its institutions (parliaments)? Parliaments adopt various strategies to address these issues - increasing transparency, procedural and output legitimacy. One example is the direct interaction between parliaments and organized interests during the legislative process. This Panel focuses on the interaction between the parliament and organized interest groups, posing the question whether strengthening these forms of interactions has the potential to strengthen the legitimacy of national parliaments by bridging the gap between citizens and institutions of representative democracy. This Panel welcomes comparative Papers that contribute to the broader comparative research on the interaction between national parliaments and organized interests (civil society, trade unions, and lobby groups). We particularly welcome comparisons between CEE and other transition countries around the world, but theoretically driven Papers with single case studies are also welcome.