Bulletin of Geography. Socio–economic Series / No. 32 (2016): 85–104 BULLETIN OF GEOGRAPHY. SOCIO–ECONOMIC SERIES DE journal homepages: http://www.bulletinofgeography.umk.pl/ http://wydawnictwoumk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/BGSS/index http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bog ISSN 1732–4254 quarterly G De Facto States and Democracy: The Case of Abkhazia Vincenc Kopeček1, CDFMR, Tomáš Hoch2, CDFMR, Vladimír Baar 3, CM University of Ostrava, Faculty of Science, Department of Human Geography and Regional Development, Chittussiho 10, 710 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic; 1e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author); 2e-mail: [email protected] 3e-mail: vladimir. [email protected] How to cite: Kopeček V., Hoch, T. and Baar, V., 2016: De Facto States and Democracy: The Case of Abkhazia. In: Szymańska, D. and Chodkows- ka-Miszczuk, J. editors, Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, No. 32, Toruń: Nicolaus Copernicus University, pp. 85–104. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/bog-2016-0017 Abstract. De-facto states constitute an interesting and important anomaly in the Article details: international system of sovereign states. No matter how successful and efficient Received: 08 April 2014 in the administration of their territories they are, they fail to achieve internation- Revised: 05 January 2016 Accepted: 22 February 2016 al recognition. In the past, their claims for independence were based primari- ly on the right to national self-determination, historical continuity and claim for a remedial right to secession, based on alleged human-rights violations. Since 2005, official representatives of several de facto states have repeatedly emphasised the importance of democracy promotion in their political entities. A possible ex- planation of this phenomenon dwells in the belief that those states which have demonstrated their economic viability and promote the organization of a demo- Key words: cratic state should gain their sovereignty. This article demonstrates the so called Abkhazia, “democracy-for-recognition strategy” in the case study of Abkhazia. On the ba- Democratisation, sis of the field research in Abkhazia we identify factors that promote, as well as Recognition, those that obstruct the democratisation process in the country. De facto states. © 2016 Nicolaus Copernicus University. All rights reserved. Contents: 1. Introduction . 86 2. De facto states – what they are and what they are not...................................... 86 3. De facto states in political geography and political science .................................. 87 4. Democratisation-for-recognition strategy – formulation of the problem ...................... 89 5. Material and research methods . 91 6. The present state of democracy in Abkhazia............................................... 93 7. Factors supporting democratisation ...................................................... 94 8. Factors preventing democratisation....................................................... 95 9. Conclusion ............................................................................ 98 © 2016 Nicolaus Copernicus University. All rights reserved. © 2016 De Gruyter Open (on-line). 86 Vincenc Kopeček, Tomáš Hoch, Vladimír Baar / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 32 (2016): 85–104 Notes .................................................................................... 99 References ............................................................................... 99 1. Introduction is a political tool and thus it can remain on the level of political declarations or it can proceed further to De facto states are an anomaly in the Westphalian the real and measurable shift to a more democratic system of states. If we look at a political map of the and free society. The question is then, what causes world consisting of coloured spots representing in- such a shift and how exactly this process of democ- dividual states, most likely we will not find them. Yet ratisation in the specific conditions of a de facto they exist. Some call them separatist states, others state proceeds. The objective of our study is, on the self-declared or unrecognised states, however, cur- case of Abkhazia, to identify the factors which con- rent literature, as we will demonstrate later, mostly tribute to the gradual democratisation of a de facto employs the term de facto states, because it clear- state as well as those which hinder it. ly demonstrates the nature of such an entity. It de facto exists, however, the international community does not recognise it as an independent state. All of 2. De facto states – what they are the de facto states, as it comes from their definition and what they are not provided later in this article, struggle for interna- tional recognition, and use several distinct strate- gies in order to reach this goal. One of them is the Sovereignty, both internal and external, is one of democratisation-for-recognition strategy, based on a the constitutive attributes of a modern state. There conviction of de facto states representatives that the are, however, states, which have problems in ex- international community will recognise their politi- ercising their external or internal sovereignty. On cal entities if they are democratic (e.g. Broers 2005; one hand, there are internationally recognised states Popescu 2006; Caspersen 2009; Berg and Mölder which cease to perform certain functions which are 2012; Kolstø and Blakkisrud 2012). expected of a modern state, such as individual se- A growing number of studies have dealt with curity, social services, equitable economic growth, the phenomenon of democratisation in de facto etc. In the taxonomy of weak statehood, these enti- states since the second half of the first decade of ties range from weak states, through failing states, the 21st century, e.g., Protsyk (2009, 2012) focused to collapsed states (Jackson, 1993; Zartman, 1995; on democratisation in Transnistria, Azam (2013) Rotberg, 2004; Šmíd and Vaďura, 2009). The states on Somaliland, Kolstø and Blakkisrud (2012) on in the second category are admittedly capable of Nagorno-Karabakh, Smolnik (2012) on elections performing sovereign legislative, executive and ju- in Nagorno-Karabakh, von Steinsdorff (2012), von dicial power over their territories, they struggle for Steinsdorff and Fruhstorfer (2012), and Berg and independence, but lack international recognition, Mölder (2012) focused on the comparison of dem- or are recognised by only a few other states (Pegg, ocratic institutions and their legitimacies in de facto 1998). There are many terms commonly used in states in the post-Soviet area, Simão (2012) on the connection with such entities, for example unrec- role of the EU in democracy promotion in de facto ognised states, separatist states, quasi states, infor- states. The presented article reflects in part the -re mal states, pseudo states or de facto states (Kollosov sults of these studies, and at the same time, brings and O’Loughlin, 1998; Pegg, 1998; Isachenko, 2012). a new and detailed view of the examined topic. The In this study we employ Kolstø’s (2006: 725–726) starting point for our study is a presumption that definition of de facto state. It is a territory where (1) democratisation-for-recognition strategy is a con- political leadership must be in control of (most of) scious process that is to legitimate claims of inde- the territory it lays claim to, (2) it must have sought pendence and international recognition. As such, it but not achieved international recognition as an in- Vincenc Kopeček, Tomáš Hoch, Vladimír Baar / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 32 (2016): 85–104 87 dependent state, and (3) it has to persist in the state thus it can relatively easily enter the internation- of non-recognition for more than two years. al scene. All its major partners recognise its inde- Pegg (1998: 28–42) distinguishes de facto states pendence. Unlike some authors (Geldenhuys, 2009) from other atypical entities, such as: (1) power vac- we have also not included Palestine to the group of uums, (2) terrorist groups, (3) other entities, which de facto states. The reason is that since 1988, when have political character, but do not seek interna- the Palestinian Declaration of Independence pro- tional recognition, (4) puppet states, (5) separatist claimed the establishment of the State of Palestine, regions, which have chosen peaceful secession, (6) this political entity has been gradually recognised states, which are internationally recognised by at by dozens of UN member states. Currently (Janu- least two permanent members of the UN Security ary 2016) 70 % of the 193 member states of the Council or a majority of member states of the UN United Nations have recognised the State of Pales- General Assembly, and (7) political entities in exist- tine. Moreover, in 2012 the UN General Assembly ence shorter than two years. passed a resolution changing Palestine’s entity sta- Currently, based on Kolstø’s and Peggs’s criteria, tus to non-member observer state. Palestine also six entities are commonly considered as de facto faces completely different problems than de facto states: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, states as we have defined them. It does not need Transnistria, Northern Cyprus and Somaliland (e.g. to struggle for international recognition, but it has Kolstø, 2006; Caspersen, 2008b; Berg and Toomla, to negotiate, under the supervision of the interna- 2009). All of them were formed as a consequence of tional community, its borders and mutual relations armed