East European Politics & Societies

East European Politics & Societies http://eep.sagepub.com/ EU Accession of Central and Eastern European Countries: Democracy and Integration as Conflicting Logics Kristi Raik East European Politics and Societies 2004 18: 567 DOI: 10.1177/0888325404269719 The online version of this article can be found at: http://eep.sagepub.com/content/18/4/567 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: American Council of Learned Societies Additional services and information for East European Politics & Societies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://eep.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://eep.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav >> Version of Record - Nov 10, 2004 What is This? Downloaded from eep.sagepub.com at University of Turku on April 9, 2013 10.1177/0888325404269719EUEast Accession European of Politics Central and and Societies Eastern Europe ARTICLE EU Accession of Central and Eastern European Countries: Democracy and Integration as Conflicting Logics Kristi Raik Although the European Union (EU) has in many ways supported democratization in Central and Eastern Europe, it has also imposed new constraints on the functioning of democracy. The article explores the indirect impact of EU integration on the Eastern applicant countries by exposing the underlying logic of enlargement and analyzing the implications of that logic for democratic politics. The empirical analysis focuses on the preaccession process of one of the new member states, Estonia, but it also examines the overall EU policy toward Eastern candidates, pointing to the limits of enlargement as a form of democracy promotion. It highlights that the prin- ciples and norms that dominated enlargement—most notably inevitability, speed, efficiency, and expertise—constrained democratic politics in the applicant countries and limited their EU accession to a narrow sphere of elites and experts. The author links the findings with the democratic deficit in the EU and draws some conclusions concerning future prospects of democracy in and democracy promotion by the enlarged EU. Keywords: European Union; enlargement; democracy; discourse analysis; Estonia; Central and Eastern Europe As eight post-communist countries joined the European Union (EU) on 1 May 2004, the contribution of this achievement to democratic consolidation was one of the major reasons for celebra- tion. Throughout the preaccession period, it was widely taken for granted that preparations for EU membership promoted the democratization of candidate countries. Yet in the 1990s, EU enlargement as a form of democracy promotion remained strik- ingly undertheorized and understudied.1 Research on the democratization of post-communist countries built on the tradition of comparative democratization studies that used to focus almost 1. Laurence Whitehead, “The Enlargement of the European Union: A ‘Risky’ Form of Democ- racy Promotion,” in Laurence Whitehead, ed., The International Dimensions of Democrati- zation: Europe and the Americas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 415-16. East European Politics and Societies, Vol. 18, No. 4, pages 567–594. ISSN 0888-3254 © 2004 by the American Council of Learned Societies. All rights reserved. 567 DOI: 10.1177/0888325404269719 Downloaded from eep.sagepub.com at University of Turku on April 9, 2013 exclusively on domestic factors.2 Nonetheless, democratization scholars now generally acknowledged that international dimensions played a more significant role in the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs)3 than in any previous cases of transition and that the EU was the most influential external actor in the region. In recent years, several new studies dealing specifically with the international aspects of transition have been published. As a result of closer scrutiny, assessments of the EU’s role have become more critical.4 The EU has applied a range of instruments of democracy promotion—most important, the conditions for membership and financial assistance—but the impact of these tends to be overestimated.5 In the 1990s, an average of only 1 per- cent of the total EU aid to the CEECs was directed toward democracy.6 Furthermore, several studies bring into question the effectiveness of democratic conditionality.7 The EU has only been able to exert a considerable influence on those transition countries that have been committed to democracy and integration in any 2. See, e.g., Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead, Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986). 3. By “CEECs” (Central and Eastern European countries), I refer to the post-communist Eastern EU applicant countries. Eight of these countries—the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia—became full members of the EU on 1 May 2004. 4. E.g., several articles in East European Politics and Societies 17:1(2003) (special edition on EU enlargement); Robert Bideleux, “ ‘Europeanization’ and the Limits to Democratization in East-Central Europe,” in Geoffrey Pridham and Attila Ágh, eds., Prospects for Democratic Consolidation in East-Central Europe (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2001), 25-53; Whitehead “The Enlargement of the European Union,” 415-42; and several articles in Jan Zielonka and Alex Pravda, eds., Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe, vol. 2, International and Transnational Factors (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). 5. The effectiveness of conditionality is emphasised in Geoffrey Pridham, “Rethinking Regime- Change Theory and the International Dimension of Democratisation: Ten Years after in East- Central Europe,” in Pridham and Ágh, Prospects for Democratic Consolidation, 54-95; and Diane Ethier, “Is Democracy Promotion Effective? Comparing Conditionality and Incen- tives,” Democratization 10:1(2003): 99-120, among others. 6. Karen E. Smith, “Western Actors and the Promotion of Democracy,” in Zielonka and Pravda, Democratic Consolidation, 49; J. R. Wedel, Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe (New York: Palgrave for St. Martin’s Griffin, 2001), 87. 7. Frank Schimmelfennig, Stefan Engert, and Heiko Knobel, “Costs, Commitment and Compli- ance: The Impact of EU Democratic Conditionality on Latvia, Slovakia and Turkey,” Journal of Common Market Studies 40:3(2003): 495-518; Karen E. Smith, “The Use of Political Condi- tionality in the EU’s Relations with Third Countries: How Effective?” European Foreign Affairs Review 3:2(1998): 253-74; and Robert Youngs, “European Union Democracy Promo- tion Policies: Ten Years On,” European Foreign Affairs Review 6:3(2001): 355-73. 568 EU Accession of Central and Eastern Europe Downloaded from eep.sagepub.com at University of Turku on April 9, 2013 case and where the priorities of the domestic leaders have, by and large, overlapped with Western expectations.8 Indirect and unintended impacts of integration have been more pervasive than the EU’s policies of democracy promotion. By penetrating the domestic politics of applicant countries, integration into the EU becomes an inseparable part of (re)producing their democracy. Earlier conceptualizations of the international dimensions of democratization9 offer limited help for studying these dynamics, for several reasons. First, they focus on earlier stages of regime change and, hence, on questions related to bringing about democracy and supporting the establishment of a new political system. Integration into the EU of the CEECs, by contrast, could only properly start after these countries had passed the transition phase or, in other words, satisfied the Copenhagen political criteria10 and started to consolidate.11 Sec- ond, the impact of EU integration differs from that of other external factors because applicant countries gradually become part of the EU—an organisation with extensive competencies and strong elements of supranationality. This article examines the indirect impact of EU integration on CEE democracies through exposing the underlying logic of East- ern enlargement and analysing the implications of that logic for democratic politics. It focuses on the case of Estonia—one of the new member states since May 2004 and one of the most success- 8. The decisive role of domestic factors has been pointed out also by Alex Pravda, “Introduc- tion,” in Zielonka and Pravda, Democratic Consolidation, 24-27; Geoffrey Pridham, “The European Union’s Democratic Conditionality and Domestic Politics in Slovakia,” Europe- Asia Studies 54:2(2002): 223; Pridham, “EU Enlargement and Consolidating Democracy in Post-Communist States—Formality and Reality,” Journal of Common Market Studies 40:3(2002), 961; and Schimmelfennig, Engert, and Knobel, “Costs, Commitment and Com- pliance,” among others. 9. For the major contributions, see Whitehead, International Dimensions; and Geoffrey Pridham, Eric Herring, and George Sanford, Building Democracy? The International Dimension of Democratisation in Eastern Europe (London: Leicester University Press, 1997). 10. As decided by the Copenhagen European Council of June 1993, the first criterion for EU membership is “stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities” (European Council, Presidency Conclu- sions, Copenhagen, Denmark, 21-22 June 1993). 11. On theoretical periodisation of democratization, see,

Load more