Party Outcomes in Hybrid Regimes in the Western Balkans and Beyond
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Party Outcomes in Hybrid Regimes in the Western Balkans and Beyond By Ivan Vuković Submitted to Central European University Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Supervisor: Professor Zsolt Enyedi Budapest, May 2014 Abstract Most political parties that had been ruling in hybrid regimes lost power as these regimes ceased to exist i.e. democratized. Yet, some of these parties remained politically dominant notwithstanding the regime change. This PhD thesis aims to offer a plausible explanation of their different political fates (here defined as party outcomes). Its main focus is on the incumbent parties in hybrid regimes that existed in Serbia, Croatia, and Montenegro during the last decade of the 20th century. In addition, the thesis looks at a larger population of similar cases with the ambition to contribute to a better general understanding of the diverging party outcomes. The thesis puts forward a theoretically innovative model explaining the party outcomes, founded upon the two assumptions: (1) the diverging fates of dominant parties in hybrid regimes are determined by these parties’ (lack of) institutionalization; (2) (the lack of) their institutionalization is determined by the salience of the national question in the process of political mobilization leading to the regime establishment. Process tracing method is employed to test the presence in the three cases under observation of the thus constructed causal mechanism linking the hypothesized conditions (nationalist mobilization and the lack of party institutionalization) and party outcome (the loss of power). The theoretical relevance of the results of the analysis, supported by numerous causal process observations (including, among others, 27 in-depth interviews), is subsequently assessed within a broader empirical domain. Without eliminating the possibility of alternative explanations, albeit challenging some of the most relevant findings of the related literature, the thesis finds the empirical validity of the research model strongly corroborated by the aforementioned three cases. At the same time, the model is found to be applicable to a number of cases beyond the established empirical framework. Acknowledgements At the end of this long journey, I feel a strong need to express my deepest gratitude to people without whose help and support I would not be where I am today. In a manner clearly affected by the years of dehumanizing everyday thinking in terms of typologies and taxonomies, yet with all my heart and soul, I would like to thank: prof. Zsolt Enyedi, for giving me much more than one might possibly expect from a supervisor (your name on the title page of this thesis makes me feel as proud as the rest of it); prof. Nenad Dimitrijević, for inspiring me with his extraordinary moral and professional example; prof. Carsten Schneider, for teaching me the language of science; prof. Steven Levitsky, for writing about hybrid regimes and helping me improve my writing; professors Ivo Banac and Herbert Kitschelt, for standing behind my academic ambition all along; prof. Siniša Vuković, for showing me the way to get here. Despite my omnipresent thesis writing-related frustration, a number of loving and caring people have throughout these years been by my side. Among them, I feel particularly grateful to Füstös Erika, the best friend one could have. My family has always been my biggest support. The advice of my father, Milorad Vuković, underlies every right choice that I have ever made. The appreciation of my brother, Matija Vuković, gives me energy to stick to my choices. The unconditional love and support of my mother, Ranka Vuković, gives meaning to them. I dedicate this thesis to her. Declaration I hereby declare that no parts of this thesis have been accepted for any other degrees in any other institutions. This thesis contains no materials previously written and/or published by another person, except where appropriate acknowledgment is made in the form of bibliographical reference. Ivan Vuković, 1 May 2014 Table of contents INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………..... 1 CHAPTER 1 ………………………………………………………………….. 7 1. HYBRID REGIMES: CONCEPTS AND THEORIES ……………… 7 1.1. Global proliferation …………………………………………….. 7 1.2. Structural ambivalence ………………………………………. 12 1.3. Diverging regime fates ……………………………………….. 15 1.4. Theoretical discussion ……………………………………….. 21 CHAPTER 2 ………………………………………………………………… 24 2. DOMINANT PARTIES IN HYBRID REGIMES ……………………24 2.1. Current understanding ……………………………………….. 24 2.1.1. The challenges of conceptualization ……………………. 24 2.1.2. Diverging party outcomes ………………………………... 28 2.2. Solving the puzzle ……………………………………………. 32 2.2.1. Party institutionalization ……………………………………32 2.2.2. Party institutionalization in hybrid regimes ……………... 36 2.2.3. The model ………………………………………………….. 39 2.2.3.1. Nationalist mobilization ……………………………. 43 2.3. Methodology …………………………………………………... 50 2.3.1. Process tracing method ……………………………………50 2.3.2. Theory-building process tracing …………………………. 52 2.3.3. Case selection …………………………………………….. 57 2.3.4. Model revisited …………………………………………….. 60 CHAPTER 3 ………………………………………………………………… 61 3. TOWARD THE ESTABLISHMENT OF HYBRID REGIMES IN THE WESTERN BALKANS………...………..…………………………... 63 3.1. Historical background ………………………………………... 63 3.1.1. The fog of Yugoslavia .................................................... 64 3.1.2. Croatia: Socialist revolution of national aspirations …… 70 3.1.3. Montenegro: Rebirth through the uprising ……………… 81 3.2. Brotherhood and unity of hopes and fears ………………… 84 3.2.1. Croatia: The war is over, the battle continues …………. 85 3.2.1.1. Unresolved national question …………………….. 85 3.2.1.2. The spring of national renaissance ………………. 90 3.2.2. Montenegro: Most favored Yugoslav republic …………. 96 3.2.2.1. Decades of emancipation …………………………. 96 3.2.2.2. National question ambiguity …………………….. 100 3.2.3. Serbia: The fear of (others’) freedom ………………….. 105 3.2.3.1. A lone voice against decentralization …………... 105 3.2.3.2. Wading in collective self-pity …………………….. 111 3.3. Yugoslavia after Tito ………………………………………... 119 3.3.1. Serbia: The roar …………………………………………. 120 3.3.1.1. Rise of the leader ……………………………….... 120 3.3.1.2. Reunifying the Republic ………………………….. 129 3.3.2. Montenegro: The whisper ………………………………. 134 3.3.2.1. The echo of Kosovo ……………………………… 134 3.3.2.2. E Pluribus Unum ………………………………….. 143 3.3.3. Croatia: The deafening silence ……………………....... 148 3.3.3.1. Maspok is over ………………………………........ 148 3.3.3.2. Fading apathy ……………………………………... 153 CHAPTER 4 ……………………………………………………………….. 159 4. PARTY OUTCOMES IN SERBIA, CROATIA, AND MONTENEGRO......................................................................159 4.1. Serbia: One-man show …………………………………….. 161 4.1.1. Old face of the new regime …………………………….. 161 4.1.2. Political pluralism – more than just a democratic façade ……………………………………………………………… 165 4.1.3. Le partie, c’est moi! ……………………………………… 171 4.2. Croatia: The state, the leader, and the party …………….. 179 4.2.1. National reconciliation ………………………………...… 179 4.2.2. Independence, but no democracy ……………………... 188 4.2.3. Croatian (President’s) Democratic Union ……………... 196 4.3. Montenegro: Single-party multipartism …………………… 203 4.3.1. Political pluralization without democratization ………... 203 4.3.2. The years of dominance ………………………………… 208 4.3.3. Party as a political value ………………………………... 211 4.4. Concluding remarks ………………………………………… 219 CHAPTER 5 ……………………………………………………………….. 222 5. HYBRID REGIME PARTY OUTCOMES IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE …………………………………………………….. 222 5.1. Problematic cases of hybrid regime democratization …… 225 5.1.1. Benin ……………………………………………………… 225 5.1.2. Ghana and Nicaragua …………………………………... 227 5.1.3. Guyana …………………………………………………… 230 5.1.4. Mali and Ukraine ………………………………………… 231 5.2. Party fates in democratized hybrid regimes ……………… 235 5.2.1. Slovakia …………………………………………………... 235 5.2.2. Macedonia ………………………………………………... 239 5.2.3. Taiwan ……………………………………………………. 243 5.2.4. Romania ………………………………………………….. 248 5.2.5. Mexico …………………………………………………….. 251 5.2.6. Peru ……………………………………………………….. 254 5.2.7. The Dominican Republic ………………………………... 259 5.3. Comparative lessons ……………………………………….. 262 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .…...........………………………….. 265 REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………. 272 LIST OF INTERVIEWS …………………………………………………... 293 List of tables and figures Table 1. Numbers and percentages of electoral democracies 1989-2014 ………………………………………………………………………………… 11 Table 2. Competitive authoritarian regime trajectories 1990-2008 …… 16 Table 3. Fates of ruling parties in democratized hybrid regimes ……… 22 Table 4. Party institutionalization model …………………………………. 41 Table 5. Causal mechanism explaining the effect of nationalist mobilization on party outcomes in hybrid regimes ……………………… 49 Figure 1. Theory-building process tracing (Democratic peace example) ………………………………………………………………………………… 54 Table 6. Serbian political representation in the Kingdom (in number of months – out of a total 268 – in the governmental office) ……..………. 68 Table 7. The winning results (vote % and absolute numbers in million votes) in the 1990 Serbian general elections ………………………….. 164 Table 8. The winning results (vote % and absolute numbers in million votes) in the Serbian general elections ………………………………… 169 Table 9. SPS’s electoral performance after the regime change in Serbia ………………………………………………………………………………. 178 Table 10. The winning results (vote % and absolute numbers in million votes) in the elections