Prioritizing the National Question in Post-Communist Democratic

CEU eTD Collection

DemocraticTransitions:the Croatiaand Caseof Armenia Prioritizingthe Question in National Post In partial In Department of International Relations and EuropeanStudies and Relations International of Department fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Masterof degreeof the requirements for the of fulfillment Supervisor: Kr Supervisor: Central European University European Central Nune Harutyunyan Nune Budapest,Hungary Submitted to Submitted WordCount: 17 i 2013 Makszin Maria stin By

249

- Communist

CEU eTD Collection the butconflict,muchof later. end democracy. Croatian the of consolidation junctures‘ ‗critical for du dependence path of developments strongthecooperation thewith united of opposition civiland the society. emergenceof non the to brings period transition Croatia. and Armenia of Abstrac dvlpd hs argument this developed I thesis The t

the studies the democratization process of countries in conflict based on the cases the on based conflict in countries process of democratization studiesthe ring the transition phase until the second presidential elections, elections, presidential second the until phase transition the ring two countries applying the method of process tracing, finding ev finding tracing, process of method the applying countries two for the later stage later the for

I argues t

that the prioritization of the national question during the the during question national the of prioritization the that

hog a through exploring the major events that ensured the successful the ensured that events major the exploring Notably t Notably i

democratic regime, which can can be which democratic regime, eald itrcl nlss f h political the of analysis historical detailed he critical juncture did not coincide with the with coincide not did juncture critical he

removed onlyremoved and and idence of idence looked CEU eTD Collection greatinyear hereBudapest. my valuableadvice thesis. my in dissertation PhD her from initialwritingprocess the final phases projectuntilof theoutcome. the whole the throughout me encouraged and support her given wholeheartedly has who Makszin, Acknowledgements At last, I would like to thank my family my thank to like would I last, At to thankful extremely also am I my express to like would I

throughout the wholeacademicthe yearthroughout CEU. at

n addition In highest consideration for my my for consideration highest

Prof.

Arus Harutyunyan, who al who Harutyunyan, Arus ii

for all those sacrifices that they made to made they that sacrifices those all for

wud ie o hn Artak thank to like would I

su evsr Kitn Maria Kristin pervisor, lowed me to reference to me lowed

Galyan

o his for ensure CEU eTD Collection Bibliography Conclusion Ch Test” Chapter 2 Ch Introduction Table of Content Acknowledgements Abstract Contents of Table 3.6. 3.6. Challenges for the Armenian SocietyCivil 3.5. Armenia 3.4. The Opposition Unites 3.2. Get 3.1. The Antiwar Movements and the Non 2.2. The First ElectionsParliamentary and the Consensus 2.1. Armenia and Croatia: the problem of ‘stateness’ theand Search of National Unity 1.2. Challenges for Democratic Consolidation 1.1. Challenges for Democratic Transition Methodology and Research Design apter 3 apter 1

......

...... - - - -

......

Out Consolidating DemocracyConsolidating through theDefeating Nationalists and Armenia Croatia: from Nationalist Movements to the ofFailure “Twothe Theoretical Considerations on Democratization in Post

...... - of – s

the ConsolidationFailed -

...... the

...... - Vote Vote or We

......

...... -

the Citizens, are Observing

......

...... - Nationalist Civil Nationalist SocCivil ......

...... iii ......

...... - ...... Led Transition ...... iety - Communist Communist Europe ......

......

...... - ...... Turnover ......

23 18 17 13 55 51 48 45 42 39 37 36

iii

8 7 4 1 ii

CEU eTD Collection statusThisabolishing in armedconflict ofresulted Croatia. thestate, constituent nation astheir a population Serbian large the which to according party victory to brought which i opposing Croatia, and Slovenia republics western Two federation. the within autonomy enjoyed republics the which to according order, 1974 Constitutional Yugoslav the overturn to tried center, federal the strengthen to attempting Milosevic, Slobodan communist the of leader the Yugoslavia, In independence. for demand their to brought which republics, constituent their of most in movements national of rise the to due occurred elitesto parliamentary communist organize elections. non first the was which movement, pro through regime of change from regime Czech elites, transition democratic and communist smoothestthe the between negotiations through the of experienced Hungary change them a Among democracy. declared to States totalitarianism European Eastern and Central several Cold the of end the and Wall Berlin the of fall the to led reforms democratic perestroika the and glasnost of policy Gorbachev‘s Mikhail when 1980s,the of end the at power other to then Spain to all of first spread would democratization of wave process, third the as liberalization known currently this that imagine could one no dictatorship, fascist the overthrowing Introduction countries of Southern Europe as well as Latin America. This wave continued with new with continued wave This America. Latin as well as Europe Southern of countries – In the two l two the In hn n 1974 in When

h Cota Dmcai Uin md aedet t te xsig constitution, existing the to amendments made Union, Democratic Croatian the

argest multiethnic states states multiethnic argest

h Pruus Amd ocs eotd gis te government the against revolted Forces Armed Portuguese the of anti of - - communist pro communist eorc dmntain, hl i Pln te Solidarity the Poland in while demonstrations, democracy - omns pry ht mre i 18 fre the forced 1981 in emerged that party communist –

Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, democratization Union, Soviet the and Yugoslavia 1

- was proclaimed a minority within the Croatian the within minority a proclaimed was independence elites. In Croatia, the victorious the Croatia, In elites. independence

, elrd re elections, free declared t, oslovakia achieved a a achieved oslovakia

War. As a result a As War. party CEU eTD Collection politic countries‘ the over power their strengthened conflict, ongoing the of advantage taking elites those However, democracy. towards countries the lead to supposed were 1990, in Croatia and on casesandArmeniaconflict basedthe Croatia. of in countries of process democratization the study to is thesis this of aim the Thus, countries. co democratizing theinfluences conflict of presence the how study to crucialis it respect this In politics. domestic in reforms democratic make to than rather conflicts, the manage to goal ultimate an had elites count both in institutions democratic of making the that sense the in way similara in countries ofboth path democratization the influenced they external, Armenia of case the in and internal t being it Croatia of in case the in difference conflicts, the of a character was there Although conflicts. violent experiencing through democracy wasthatwithceasefire stoppedforces, the agreement signedin 1994. Az and Armenian between Karabakh Nagorno in started war a 1991, in Union Soviet the of collapse the and independence the after Soon democratization. towards way her paving Armenia Armenia, to enclave the transfer an to refused authorities Soviet the As Armenia. Nagorno populated Armenian republics smallest its of one in expressed was which of strongest the Union, the throughout questions 1995 Croatia 1992 from that, 1995.Before untilresolvedbe to was not which groups ethnic two the between nounced its decision to secede from the Soviet Union by proclaiming independence and and independence proclaiming by Union Soviet the from secede to decision its nounced , prse te poiin n te re eortc ei. oevr te subsequent the Moreover, media. democratic free the and opposition the oppressed s, n h Sve Uin te ieaiain otiue t te emrec o national of reemergence the to contributed liberalization the Union, Soviet the In The anti The to transition their started countries both Croatia, and Armenia of cases the from seen As –

Armenia. In February 1988 mass demonstrations started both in Armenia and the and Armenia in both started demonstrations mass 1988 February In Armenia. alsogotinvolvedin devastating andin the war Herzegovina. Bosnia - communist leaders communist untries and analyze the political discourse and the transition politics in those in politics transition the and discourse political the analyze and untries

Karabakh

that were elected in the first democratic elections in Armeniaelectionsin were democratic electedin first the that

Autonomous Region of Azerbaijan for unification with unification for Azerbaijan of AutonomousRegion 2

ries had only a formal role, as the ruling the as role, formal a only had ries

erbaijani he – -

CEU eTD Collection all in be must unity condition national this how as ―background‖ explanation any provide the not does but is states, democratizing unity national that argues Rustow scholar Another betw interaction the to related explanation detailed a provide to fail Stepan cause the on more concentrating conflict, ethnic of circumstances the in democratization of problem the to attention little paid been has there Second, democracy. electoral first the experiencing First reasons. of number civilsociety. H strengthen power to country‘stheir overthe whpolitics, H theresultselitestransitions in failure the consolidate to of democracy. H following the hypotheses: test will I question this answer To termination?‖ its it after and conflict ethnic of circumstances ―Wh is to address to try will thesis this that question research the Thus, consolidation. democratic towards way her on still is Armenia while elites, nationalist the defeating through stage later 19 at democracy consolidated in power of change reaching not the Despite after conflict. and during democracy consolidating in failed countries both and in progress democratization imminent to lead not did conflict the of end the Therefore, unfair. be to results theiroppositionin candidateselectoral law; of the of breaches number a had have to observers OSCE by declared were over were conflicts the after soon held that elections 3 2: 1 : democratizatio over question national the of prioritization The :

The state of emergency, resulting from ethnic conflict creates opportunities for politicalopportunities ethnicfor elites conflictcreates resultingemergency,from state of The Consolidation of democracy is more likely more is democracy of Consolidation s of the conflicts and the decisions of the ruling elites about how to manage the conflict. the manage to how about elites ruling the of decisions the and conflicts the of s

The comparative case study of the two aforementioned countries is productive for a a for productive is countries aforementioned two the of study case comparative The and Linz address the so the address Linz and

f l, oh onre fud hmevs n tnc a while war ethnic in themselves found countries both all, of t r te atr esrn scesu dmcaiain n the in democratization successful ensuring factors the are at - called problem of ‗stateness‘ in democratization, however they however democratization, in ‗stateness‘ of problem

3 with

strong ilealsooppressing forces. opposition 97,

unification of opposition of unification

rai ws be o eeo a develop to able was Croatia een conflicts and stateness. and conflicts een

i consensus in n

turn announcedthe turn

forces and forces - based

CEU eTD Collection whi departure), (path democracy consolidated a towards direction Croatia's shifted stage first the of outcome same the how study will I stage second the For elections. presidential second the of outcome ov question national the of prioritization the was countries both in stage this at democratization limiting variable independent main the that reveals work empirical My process. democratization the of stage first the for countries both in on focus will I study o providing evidence democratization towards path case the on events of sequence this of purpose the for Particularly, conducted. be will analysis today's to elections presidential q different second the from b) and elections; presidential second the Armenia Croatia and of development stagesof two anal historical comparative of tools the ResearchDesign Methodologyand to explanation fourthcontributing the ofthe wave ofdemocratization. establishing to Constitution the of making the from events, sequencing of democraticforimportantconsolidationan pathproposemostconditions alternative and the may count these collapsed, regimes dictatorial the mobilization mass to due While East. Middle the and Africa mono a is itself state the if even outcome regime democratic the in role crucial a plays groups ethnic internalconflictbetweenincircumstancestwoof whereand thewar, external an transformations new a propose may thesis this Thus, achieved. - ethnicin t one, And last, but not least, the topic is directly connected with the current events in North North in events current the with connected directly is topic the least, not but last, And The primary methodology of the thesis is configurative case study comparison applying comparison study case configurative is thesis the of methodology primary The ualities of democracy established in those countries, countries, those in established democracy of ualities ries are facing very serious challenge for democratic consolidation. Thus this research this Thus consolidation. democratic for seriouschallengefacing very are ries le Armenia is still in the making of democratic consolidation (path dependence). (path consolidation democratic of making the in still is Armenia le he caseArmenia,he of and multiethnicin caseCroatia. the of ysis and process tracing. As the research will examine the examine will research the As tracing. process and ysis

er democratization by the state elites, affecting the affecting elites, state the by democratization er 4

–

prah oad a td o democratic of study a towards approach a) from the declaration of independence to independence of declaration the from a) a detailed comparative historical comparative detailed a

electoral democracy, electoral f path dependence path f

CEU eTD Collection Development 1 phase early the of similarities and differences both exploring perspective, comparative a in 1998 duringconflict the in democraticthe ofthe timing and inconsolidation Croatia. the both explains framework my Therefore, consolidation. the to contributed stage later on that question, national above democracy considered which parties were there therefore, and democratization, and independence for initially was movement the in while democratization, above question national placed parties political the all result a as democratization, not and unification national to priority greater gave movement Armenian conse less be may stage later the at events ‗large‘ the while impact, huge a to lead may stage early the of events ‗small‘ gap this fulfill to try will such sources through primary aspolitici I However, events. the of chain causal the disrupt point some at may which of lack the evidence, historical detailed the of gathering the concerned as limitations mydependent leadingvariable, main is to that civilandforcesthe society unificationof countriesopposition the are two between the outcomes t explain that variables independent The path. democratization the shifted that events major the only exploring is, that ―junctures‖ critical for look will I stage this Within

PaulPierson, following way. The first chapter provides a theoretical framework of of framework theoretical a provides chapter first The way. following ept te fetvns o ti mto apid o y rese my to applied method this of effectiveness the Despite The second chapter provides a detailed historical analysis of Croatia and Armenia until until Armenia and Croatia of analysis historical detailed a provides chapter second The question, research my answer and hypotheses my test to order In ―even that states he when Pierson, by discussed is dependence path of method This , 14(Spring 2000), ―NotJust what, but When: Timing andSequence in Political Processes‖, .

75 quential‖. .

eie fo ti m mi fnig s that is finding main my this from Derived ans‘ speeches, interviews, and interviews,and documents.publishedspeeches, ans‘ –

5 the ofdemocracy.consolidation

divergence of the two countries two the of divergence rh tee a b some be may there arch, StudiesinAmerican Political

my thesis is structured structured is thesis my he divergence of of divergence he d

emocratization eas the because Croatia,

CEU eTD Collection arguments themain summarizes the thesis.of a case Croatian the in change the both explains framework theoretical the how outline I chapter, path of features the discusses as well as Croatia, in organizations society civil and forces opposition consolidation. elem detects which democratization of nd the continuitythe democratic lackconsolidation) nd in(i.e. of the Armenian case. - dependence h tid hpe, ouig n rtcl ucue, tde te moemn the empowerment the studies junctures, critical on focusing chapter, third The The conclusion discusses the main findings derived from the hypotheses, as well as as well as hypotheses, the from derived findings main the discusses conclusion The

in Armenia, suggesting some prospects for democratic consolidation. In this In consolidation. democratic for prospects some suggesting Armenia, in

ns f ah eedne n lc o democratic of lack and dependence path of ents

CEU eTD Collection 1991), 266 Huntington, winners,and thoseif election winners thenpeacefully overturn power thein initial election theat timeof the transition loses subsequenta electionsand turnsover power tothose election 4 3 ofJournal Political Science 2 regimes.democratic intertwined predictions possible third the and this In countries. those in democracies of consolidation the on impact inter harsh second the after power deci of change experience not did which countries those Estonia, Interestingly, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, are them Among i power leavetheir to willing were elites political current the that meant This democracies. established newly those test‖ turnover ―two term Huntington‘s them of most elections democratic second the of time the by and transformations political serious underwent states European Eastern Central region. the in crisis political and economic current th to due democratization, genuine the to plausible more is regimes non of formation eco the a (1) countries those in transition political the of outcomes possible three predicted Ekiert countries, Europe Communist Chapter1

This Ibid. Grzegorz sive democratic elections, among them Croatia, Serbia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, experienced experienced Azerbaijan, Armenia, Serbia, Croatia, them among elections, democratic sive ,288 one is ais measure of democratic consolidation whichbecomes observable‗‘ifthe party or nomy, with the long period of instability due to ethnic or religious cleavages religious or ethnic to due instability of period long the with nomy, After the first democratic elections in elections democratic first the After - -

267. Ekiert, party state with a centrally a with state party The ThirdThe Wave: Democratization lateinthe Twentieth Century - ethnic conflicts before the second elections and those conflicts therefore had their had therefore conflicts those and elections second the before conflicts ethnic

Theoretical Considerations on Democratization in Postin Democratization on Considerations Theoretical

―Democratization Processesin East Central Europe:A TheoreticalReconsideration‖, - democratic regimes. democratic n order to keep the sustainable development of genuine democratic transition. democratic genuine of sustainable the development keep to order n

21,no.3(July 1991),

- 287 economy; controlled 2

4 Later Ekiert asserts that the transition to non to transition the that asserts Ekiert Later , was successfully passed leading to the consolidation of consolidation the to leading passed successfully was , - 288

, i.e. ethnic conflicts brought conflictsbrought ethnic i.e. ,

the 1990s in almost all Central Eastern European Eastern Central all almost in 1990s the 7

xeine cag o pwr o i Samuel in or power, of change experienced 3

oee, upiigy te aoiy of majority the surprisingly, However,

(Norman:the Universityof Oklahoma Press, (2) (2) towinners of a later election‖ the anarchization of the polity and polity the of anarchization the to to cmlx aue f the of nature complex e respect respect oe xet Slovenia extent some the formation of non of formation the groupthat takespower E kiert‘s second kiert‘s ,

; and (3) (3) and ; seeSam - - democratic British uel uel the - . :

CEU eTD Collection (Baltimore:TheJohns Hopkins University Press,1986), 6 9 Press, 2000),8 8 7 6 of Journal 5 the of importance the emphasizes literature of part considerable A consolidation. of stage the are there consolidation, another‘. and regime political new. to the of disintegration the and deconstruction is transition Democratic consolidation. democratic and transition regime phases: two in 1.1 follows. several challenges those of facediscussion The them. overcome countries to manage them of democratizing all not and the challenges period consolidation and transition during that free‖ authoritarianism‖ of form ―diminished as regime jailed. even or harassed, sometimes coverage, deni media adequate are turn their in candidates opposition The resources. state abusing results, electoral manipulate incumbents the however fraud, massive of free generally are Elections authority, d formal regimes those In

Seethe Guil GraemGill, Seeofficialthe website of Freedom House, Juan StevenLevistky andLucan A.Way, ―Elections without Democracy: TheRise of CompetitiveAuthoritarianism .

Challenges for DemocraticTransition for Challenges lermo O‘Donneland PhillipShmi . L 7

inz,

Why do those countries often turn towards competitive auth competitive towards turn often countries those do Why Democracy searchresults thefor respective country The study of the third wave of democratization implies that the regime change happens change regime the that implies democratization of wave third the of study The non Those

s ‘onl ad cmte pit u, h tasto i ‗n nevl ewe one between interval ‗an is transition the out, point Schmitter and O‘Donnell As Totalitarianand Authoritarian Regimes The Dynamicsof Democratization: Elites,Civil Society andthe Transition Process .

13,no. 2(April 2002), 52 - democratic regimes are often characterized as competitive as characterized often are regimes democratic

considerable challenges that the old regime faces, before passing on to on passing before faces, regime old the that challenges considerable emocratic institutions serve as a tool to obtain and exercise political exercise and obtain to tool a as serve institutions emocratic

9 t

ter, o nue h sot itra bten rniin and transition between interval smooth the ensure To - Transitionsfrom Democracy: 53 http://www.freedomhouse.org

. (London:Lynne Rienner, 2000),34.

old regime, and the shift from old governing structures governing old from shift the and regime, old .

6 , while Freedom Ho Freedom while , TentativeConclusions about Uncertain Democracies

iz hrceie ti tp of type this characterizes Linz oritarianism? The reason is reason The oritarianism?

use labels them as ―partly as them labels use (NewSaint York: Martin‘s - authoritarianism. , ‖

CEU eTD Collection 14 Europe i 13 onsociothe second The typeof the pact usespolitics thefor resolution of 12 ComparativePolitical Studies 11 (Baltimore:TheJohns H AuthoritarianRule: Comparative Perspectives Europe 10 t of rules the when failed, be to considered be can cooperation The game. the democratic of rules the over consensus and elites the of backgrounds ideological other the above is elections popular bring can of mechanismstransition. the ruleswith withinpositions theirtheir hard strengthening time same the at liberalization the sponsor opposition moderate within alliances when successful considered be can agreements those that assert rule of rules new the politically all virtually of actors significant inclusive and comprehensive are they First, agreements. these of to willing are reasons. political leaders for compromise party mainly participants, the when occurs, them of one agreements: democracy‖. consolidate and about wh conflict, destabilizing potentially of sources agenda political them. of either by challenged be not must which game, democratic the of rules the establish to elites phase. transition the in elites n Geofreyn Pr

Linz,Stepan, 296 Ibid FrancesHagopian, SeeLinz, Stepan, Terry Lynn Terry Karland Philippe - making as being the most important stage in the process of compromise. of process the in stageimportant most the being as making

.,149

(Aldershot (Baltimore:TheJoh Hag - - 150 economicreform in order to consolidatedemocracy h nmnto o te olcie addt o a at t cm t pwr through power to come to party a or candidate collective the of nomination the ba dfns hs oprto a ‗eoitd gemns ht eoe rm the from remove that agreements ‗negotiated as cooperation this defines obian idham, ed., .

Dartmouth,1995), .

Problemsof Democratic Transitionand Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and Post

. governance and a social contract between state agencies. Third, they emphasize they Third, agencies. state between contract social a and governance .

― Second, they include an agreement between political parties to compete under compete to parties political between agreement an include they Second, They are therefore effective if there is a mutual agreement that the democracythe that agreement mutual a is there ifeffective therefore are They Democracyby Undemocratic Means? PoliticalElites, PactsandRegime Transition in Brazil

opkinsUniversity Press,1986 Transitionsto Democracy:Comparatice Perspectives from Southern Europem LatinAmerica and Eastern

23,no. 2(July 1990), 149 nsHopkins University Press, 1996), Guillermo

Schmitter, 10

This is expressed in the strong commitment of the old a old the of commitment strong the in expressed is This - 165 liners.fulfills moderateopposition The then democratization the

;

12 Transitionsfrom Democracy: .

― Karl and and Karl Modesof transition Latinin America, S 11

She distinguishes between three kinds of political political of kinds three between distinguishes She Logicallyt .

) . Schmitter Schmitter

non his successfulhis cooperati .

TentativeConclusions about Uncertain Democracies political conflict;political the third type putsthe emphasis emphasize several essential components components essential several emphasize O‘Donell,etal. ich are viewed favorably to bring to favorably viewed are ich outhernand Eastern Europe‖ eie soft regime Transitionsfrom on between the on elitesbetween 13

Stepan and Linz,and Stepan - liners - Communist nd new nd finding

he , ‖

CEU eTD Collection 19 18 York: thatin state. See Stephen Saideman and William Ayres, 17 and Democracy 16 ( consensus the facilitate to 15 polity the for easier much is it ‗polity‘, the and ‗demos‘ the state‖ within diversity cultural low is there if and state, the in existing nation one only is there if boundaries, state the outside irredenta significant ‗s a call we what is there state, that in citizenship to right the has who to as differences and profound state community‘s political the of boundaries territorial the about differences profound - movement independence later turning irredentist (Croatia). to one Lithuania, (Latvia, expresse others Estonia), independence for were them of some country: movements to those country from However, differed countries. those in process democratization the of beginning exists never democracy that and democracy of idea the without impossible is nationalism of idea ―the that argument Nodia‘s territory given a over sovereignty possessing state nation modern a creating polity and culture make to ‗strives which movement independence. states' those occurred transition agreementisamongno elites about ifthere the constitutional the structurestate.of the ensure to incumbent the by changed constantly are game democratic Spring,1992

tateness‘ problem‘‘. tateness‘ Ibid.,25 Linz,Stepan, 16 ―Irredentism is GiaNodia, ―NationalismandDemocracy‖, Larryin VictorZaslavsky h so the Co In the majority of post of majority the In Those nationalist movements brought another challenge for the transition to democracy to transition the for challenge another brought movements nationalist Those lumbiaUniversity Press, 2008), - .

ald rbe o ―st of problem called

), (Baltimoreand London: TheJohns Hopkins University Press, 1994), 4 106 describedas territoriala claim ofstate one towards the other orderin to unitethe lostkin, residing .

. ,

―Nationalismand Democratic Transition in Post with the start of nationalist movements, which brought to the demand of demand the to brought which movements, nationalist of start the with

According to them, democratization can be successful when ―there is no is ―there when successful be can democratization them, to According d irredentist claims (Armenia, Serbia), (Armenia, claims irredentist d

alvk dfns ainls a ― pltcl otie n social and doctrine political ―a as nationalism defines Zaslavsky -

communist Central and Eastern European Sta European Eastern and Central communist ihu nationalism‖ without tns‖ Ln ad tpn eie t s olw: i tee are there ―if follows: as it define Stepan and Linz ateness‖.

1 .

Diamond andMarc ForKin Country: or Xenophobia,Nationalism and War 10 19

. Of course, if there is a homogeneity between homogeneity a is there if course, Of . 16 ogun‘ n a te rnil am of aim principle the has and congruent‘ te toe oeet mre the marked movements those then , - C ommu

Plattner, eds., 17

nistSocieties the third group started with thewith started group third the

. their secure re secure their

Nationalism,EthnicConflict , ‖

Daedalus tes, the democratic democratic the tes, ”. 15

f e accept we If

- 137, no.137, 1 election, or election,

(New - led CEU eTD Collection 22 D 21 no.700 20 endure to materializing, if and materialize, to likely least is democracy where is therefore, sta where especially and contestation, of source continuing a is nation the Where project… liberal this the and with project nation, state the the ―links of consensus composition the as well as territories the on agreement an be must developme the hinder that problems important most the of one is This democratization. of process the disturbing without heterogeneous or homogeneous either is, it ov that prioritizing unity, national of urgency the politicize elites which to degree the on much depends methodthirdThe given state. the territorialof the boundaries of themselvesasmembers identify with unite to population external the for seekingunity. this orderseek Inof tonational unity,methods peoplenational demandsmay have about theis more here problem solved.beThe to has unity issuenational the of democratization wary‘. us make unity national should the about consensus vocal any and granted accepted for is taken unity silently is ‗national unthinkingly, when fulfilled best is him, to according condition, background comm political common the in live will they that citizens the among understanding unity‘ ‗national the is condition background The transition. democracyguarantees homogeneity that or heterogeneity it‖. underminesnecessarily national that mean, not does ―that homogeneity, national of issue the discussing while notes, n does state a within diversity cultural the However, democratization. with building nation combine and transition

emocracy Bunce, Dankwart Valerie Bunce,―Comparative

(August er democratization. Alternatively, elites may accept the given territory of the state the waythe state the of giventerritory the accept may elitesdemocratization.Alternatively, er Rus

712 (New York:Columbia University Press,1999), 25 Rustow, ―TransitionstoDemocracy: TowardDynamica . o‘ wt tre pae‘ n ‗h bcgon cniin ncsay n h regime the in necessary condition‘ background ‗the and ‗phases‘ three with tow‘s

- September,2000), 712

ot imply that democratic transition cannot be fulfilled. As Valerie Bunce Bunce Valerie As fulfilled. be cannot transition democratic that imply ot 21 D

emocratization: andBig Bounded Generalizations Rustow‘s argument implies that before before that implies argument Rustow‘s

the inner one, or impose unity to people, who do not do who people, to unity impose or one, inner the 11 tehood is disconnected from a liberal mission, liberal a from disconnected is tehood -

26 .

Model – , ‖inAnderson, ed.,

hc ipis ht hr i an is there that implies which , ‖ ComparativePolitical Studies nt of democracy. There democracy. of nt the actual start of of start actual the Transit 20

ions to

unity. The unity. 22 . With . 33, CEU eTD Collection 24 23 inifthe transitional entirely m phase the almost crafted be can ―democracy argument, Palma‘s Di interpret would Cular as authoritarian And regime. competitive aforementioned the to bringing rules, those which abuse to transition, government actual the before the of game rules the democratic of prioritization the about consensus the reaching in failure to due mainly is This judiciary. the and parliament the both controlling presidency strong the with opposition, etc. parties, activ political the oppressing elites, different incumbent by controlled of are institutions those establishment However, powers, of separation clear the of forms pla takes transition be cannot elites the effective. among agreements the out, point explicitly Schmitter and O‘Donnell trans threaten to likely be will and disturbed be will process the unity, national of condition background the reach to how of methods the on consensus reach rather but contestation, national over democracy prioritizing the on consensus 23 procedure‘. democratic of crucial aspect the ‗institutionalize to hurry they and pluralism on elites political inconclusive and struggle‘,followe ‗prolonged a in themselves find elites when phase‘, ‗preparatory phas other the all contestation, national over democracy prioritize to consensus national the of absence the

O‘Donell,Schmitter, Rustow, If they themselves in the interface of the political parties do not have not do parties political the of interface the in themselves they If In Rustow‘s model, with the background condition of national unity present, there is a a is there present, unity national of condition background the with model, Rustow‘s In ept al f hs dsdatgs uig h frt eid f eortzto, the democratization, of period first the during disadvantages those of all Despite

27 24 es describedes Rustowbywouldlittle, have effect. ifany,

d by ‗decisionwhichphase‘, implies by d that there should a be consensus the among ei h sneta h eie isiuinlz tedmcai poeue, in procedure‘, democratic the ‗institutionalize elites the that sense the in ce Transitionsfrom Authoritarian Rule

ain achieveplayers sufficientlyaconsensuson strong the , ition. 12 37

n h peec o ti kn o eet, as events, of kind this of presence the In ie opruiy o incumbent for opportunity gives

the above mentioned above the ities of the of ities

CEU eTD Collection 30 29 28 27 26 (2000),no. 5 34 25 diffe considerable therewere context, proceeds‘. democratization as demobilized becomes short is mobilization ‗popular elections‘, ‗founding in involvement elites. authoritarian of and removal and movements different point, some At democracydemanding people'' ''the themselvesas identifyingtogether, come should associations above. from introduced being t is the in democracy role considerable a play not does society civil that imply unityare fulfilled.and national preparatory phase goals. their realizing for precondition alreadywell those accept to had outside elitesfrom accepted newlythenew rules, theimpliesand political trust which phase‘,the that elites ‗habituation asa it town‘. in game only ‗the become has rulesand institutions of system complex its authority‖ gainnormative they that society become have transition from obtained processes and structures new ―the when consolidated considered be can Democracy 1.2 democratic in progress of lack transiti and power of concentration the justify to ability elites' the game‖. the of rules basic

Gill, 45 Shmit Ibid Linz,Stepan, 5 Gill, 8 GoranCular, ― .

Challenges for DemocraticConsolidation for Challenges . ,32 ter,O'Donnel, on. .

s a a te rniin hs i cmltd te et tp s h cnoiain phase. consolidation the is step next the completed, is phase transition the as far As It is during this phase, when the role of the civil society becomes evident. This does not not does This evident. becomes society civil the of role the when phase, this during is It .

- 33

. Political

Transitionfrom

D evelopmentin Croatia: TransitionFast 25

The presence of conflict creates a state of emergency that amplifies that emergency of state a creates conflict of presence The stabilized and so embodied in the collective consciousness of the of consciousness collective the in embodied so and stabilized

A uthoritarianRule 29 28 rences of the level of development of the civil society prior civilprior the of society level development the of of rences

s il assert Gill As This how This 26 . Thus, consolidation is a political regime which with which regime political isa consolidation Thus, . ,

54 13 . ever

atog pol cn atcpt through participate can people although s

occurs when the background condition of condition background the when occurs 30 –

n h Esen uoen communist European Eastern the In Postponed Consolidation‖, - established rules as an undisputable an as rules established astoa pro ee if even period ransitional - ie ad h populace the and lived Politicka Misao 27

Rustow te Rustow

37, rms CEU eTD Collection 33 32 1993), 59 31 not do people and culture, political of traditions established long are there where democracies, associations)‖. professional and groups, entrepreneurial unions, trade as (such strata social all from associations as well as organizations), intellectual religiousand associations, groupings,neighborhood groups, (women's m social manifold including interests, theiradvance to and solidarities, and associations create to values,articulate to attempt individuals and movements, groups, autonomous relatively of consolidation Stepa the and on Linz democracy. society civil the of impact great the about argues literature of part considerable A actions. their of transparency and accountability the ensuring period transition dem those of ―watchdog‖ a into turns it as important, Armenia. Union. the thro achieved be could democracy that demanding elites ethnic with united republics the of societies the in opposition nationalist and democratic after pressured were elites si time same the at nationalism, ethnic disintegrative the using masses attracted power, state the in position their 'them'. ‗people' the of all included there democratization the of eve the on popularorganization the Therefore, center. the on republicsdependent alsobeing the within elites communist the apparatus, state the with linked were republics those in life people's center hegemonic the by controlled being republics, Soviet the in while looser, considerably was society civil of control the Yugoslavia, democratization. of start the to

LinzandStepan, ―Toward Consolidated Democracies Gill, GeorgSorensen, 232 31 uig h cnoiain hs, oee, h cvl oit‘ rl bcms vn more even becomes role society‘s civil the however, phase, consolidation the During .

In Yugoslavia, Gill argues, that when the federal unity disappeared, ethnic elites using elites ethnic disappeared, unity federal the when that argues, Gill Yugoslavia, In - 233

A clear example of the Yugoslav case was Croatia, while in the Soviet Union Union Soviet the in while Croatia, was case Yugoslav the of example clear A lencing the lencing Democracyand

- Democratization:Processes and Prospects ina Changing World eiecvla te rn fteplt wee self where polity the of arena ―the as civil define n motivated 33

hi dfnto seem definition Their - for change civil society, while in Soviet Union, the central the Union, Soviet in while civilsociety, change for , ‖ 14 Journalof Democracy

pasbe n h cs o Western of case the in plausible s – cai isiuin, rae drn the during created institutions, ocratic

'us' struggling against the apparatus the against struggling 'us'

7,no. 2(1996), 17 – , (Boulder:, Westview Press,

Moscow, all aspects o aspects all Moscow, ugh destruction of destruction ugh .

- organizing and and organizing ovements – - f

CEU eTD Collection Perspectivesand 36 35 InternationalPolitical ScienceReview 34 f moment vulnerable represent elections those elections, the rig to able being population, the of part considerable a of support the on rely can semi illegitimate be they majorities‖. intolerant whether or usurpers rulers, by action tyrannical or arbitrary to resistance potential po the from elites remove to trying without demands, individual for expression self providing commitments; collectiveensuringmembersits of behavior includingthe governing democracy, of consolidation autonomous likelyare effectiveexperiencemore groups to vibrant governance‖. of abundance an with states while effectiveness, bureaucratic of terms associati civic party ideological well have not do that states transitional in especially reforms political promoting masses, publicl the insufficiency governmental to the information showing of flow constant ensure can activity their with which (NGOs), ofdemocracy.consolidation semi defeat to and justice electoral establish to is groups those of goal primary the meaning: muchbroader has civilsociety the completelyreached, not is Easte In governments. elected democratically the to interests their introduce rather but justice,electoral the for struggle

Ibid. Rollin Schmitter, ―CivilSociety andEast West‖, LarryDiamond,in - uhrtra gvrmns n post in governments authoritarian ,

365

Tusalem, Boon―A or a Bane?TheRo h dmns f ii scey r canld hog non through channeled are society civil of demands The cmte ietfe severa identifies Schmitter .

(London:Johnsthe Hopkins University Press litical system; and most importantly, ―civil society provides important reservoirs of reservoirs important provides society ―civil importantly, most and system; litical nls i mr poe o aig ntttos ih usadr promne in performance substandard with institutions having to prone more is onalism - systems.

rn European post European rn 34

28,no. 3 Taking this into account, Tusalem states, ―A state with low levels of levels low with state ―A states, Tusalem account, into this Taking

36 (2007),364

poess f h cvl oit, otiuig o the to contributing society, civil the of processes l Demes and Forbrig discussing the civic the discussing Forbrig and Demes le ofle the societycivil in Third and Fourth Wave democracies‖, - - omns Erp, tt ta atog toe regimes those although that state Europe, communist communist context, however, where the consolidation the where however, context, communist - 365 15 .

r h rgm, rvdn opruiy o pro for opportunity providing regime, the or , t h sm tm atcltn ter demands their articulating time same the at y,

1997) etal., ,

247 -

authoritarian leaders paving w paving leaders authoritarian Consolidatingthe WaveThird Democracies: 35 .

- oenetl organizations governmental

action in defeating in action - established ay to the to ay Themes - CEU eTD Collection (Washington,D.C.: PavolDemes and 37 unitedand of cooperation the theopposition civilsociety. non of emergence the to brings na the of prioritization the that argue I democracy groupsstronga have forthose impact defeat ofthe authoritarian competitive regimes. the forcing by power, show will of evidence empirical the change As up. give to reach elites authoritarian to is groups those of goal primary the However, well.as ones political pursues interests economic the with together civilsociety that mean would th if even forces, society civil and opposition oriented democratically between cooperation elections‖. in society civil by launched campaigns ci the and opposition democratic the by exerted is ―pressure them, to According government‖. the of legitimacy the contest to and support for population the to appeal ―to groups civic aswell as forces democracy

PavolDemes and Taking into consideration the challenges facing both for transition and consolidation of of consolidation and transition for both facing challenges the consideration into Taking

Joerg Forbrig,

Joerg Forbrig ERSTEFoundation,

ies atvtd hog nation through activated tizens,

eds., ,

―CivicAction andDemocratic PowerShifts: onStrategie

ReclaimingDemocracy: Civil - democratic regime, which can be removed only with the strong the with only removed be can which regime, democratic

2007 ), 178 - 179 16 .

According to this logic this implies a strong a implies this logic this to According tional question during the transition period transition the during question tional Societyand ElectoralChange inCentral and Eastern Europe

- ie nomto ad mobilization and information wide

in the consequent chapters, consequent the in sandResources‖ in

at at

CEU eTD Collection consolidation. democratic leaders nationalist the defeat to managed Croatia why reasons the th in events of chain the if explore to me allow will which dependence, path of evidence for looking democratization towards path the on events of sequence on focus as aswell wars, those by affected Armenia, and Croatia in developments political those analyze rather but wars, those of process the and reasons discussthe to not is here aim My Azerbaijan. of Republic whi Karabakh, Nagorno of Armenian enclave the over fighting was Armenia while Herzegovina, and Bosnia in later inter of results Europe Eastern the about bring years, were the These Armenia. an historical comparative a doing similaritiesthe a both discover To 1980s. the of end the at Europe Eastern in process democratization the by affected Fail Chapter2 H H 2 1 : :

Thestateofemergency, from resulting conflictethnic opportunitiescreatespolitical for e - Theprioritizationthe nationaloverof democratizationquestion inconsensus “Two the of ure ethnic conflicts, Croatia being involved in war, first in its own territory with the Serbs, and Serbs, the with territory own its in first war, in involved being Croatia conflicts, ethnic This chapter deals with the nationalist movements started both in Armenia and Croatia and Armenia in both started movements nationalist the with deals chapter This Within the chapter I willthe I following chapterWithin thetest the political discourse and the transition politics in the aforementioned countries. aforementioned politicsthe transition in the political and discourse the both of of both

Armenia and Croatia: from Nationalist Nationalist from Croatia: and Armenia change of power, power, of change Adtoal, t Additionally, . power country’sover power the politics,whilealsooppressing forces. opposition the elections to be unfair. Before that thos that Before unfair. be to elections the nd differences of those movements I willmethod,process thetracing I movements apply of those differences nd -

Turnover Test” Turnover failure of the failure democracy.elites consolidateof to when e SE n ohr nentoa osres none the announced observers international other and OSCE he while this this while lss f hs cutis until countries those of alysis h a a ta tm a atnmu rgo wti the within region autonomous an time that at was ch the second presidential elections in both countries presidentialboth second in the elections did

occur

two two hypotheses: in the other post other the in e two countries experiences harsh experiences countries two e Movements to the the to Movements 97 n rai, n 19 in 1996 and Croatia, in 1997

later - basedresultstransitionsin the - , paving its way towards towards way its paving , e early stage can explain can stage early e communist countries of countries communist litesstrengthentotheir

- populated

failed to failedto I will I CEU eTD Collection Palgrave Macmillan,2006), 29 40 39 SabrinaRamet 38 electi Change, Democratic of Party the suffix the adding threat. a as Milosevic saw wings conservative two into League the by represented time that at was leadership‘. political Yugoslav unified a of end the ‗marking Communists, of League the of Congress the left countries both Federation. January the in and policy this within opposed strongly Croatia and Slovenia equality and autonomy considerable enjoyed republics all th to tried Party, Communist Yugoslav the of leadership the gaining after soon who Milosevic, Slobodan of leadership the under radicalism Serbian growing to response externaltheunificationwithArmenia, kindemanded internalthe one. oppo population inner the of because emerged problem the Croatia, of case the In democracy. towards transition the for difficulties addition creates chapter, first the in discussed argument Stepan‘s and Linz to according which Armenia, Unity 2.1

SharonFisher, Ibid. MarkoAttila Hoar e federal center federal e .

Armenia and Croatia: the problem of „stateness‟ and the Search of National ofNational the of„stateness‟problem Search the and Croatia: and Armenia ons, which was for the for was which ons,

This subchapter thesubchapter ‗stateness‘explores Thisemergence of the of problem The emergence of the nationalist movements in Croatia started in 1989 mainly in in mainly 1989 in started Croatia in movements nationalist the of emergence The

(Cambridge PoliticalChange Post in e , ―TheWar of Yugoslav Succession,‖ in

by overturning the Yugoslav Constitutional order, according to which which to according order, Constitutional Yugoslav the overturning by

C ambr .

40 idge UniversityPress, 2010),

The reformed communists adopted a new name name new a adopted communists reformed The

m - - CommunistSlovakia Croatia:and From Nationalist Europeanistto

hardliners, who supported Milosevic, and reformers, who reformers, and Milosevic, supported who hardliners, largely an attempt to get out of a conflicting situation at at situation conflicting a of out get to attempt an largely 39

Due to this, the Croatian communist party, which which party, communist Croatian the this, to Due 18 ig needne f h state the of independence sing f omnss f rai (SKH), Croatia of Communists of

Centraland Southeast EuropeanPoliticsSince 1989 116 .

and and decided to hold multiparty multiparty hold to decided

1990, the delegates of delegates the 1990,

both in both Croatia and

I (New York: te ae of case the n -

SKH strengthen strengthen divided , ‖ - SDP, SDP,

ed. ed. 38

CEU eTD Collection 45 44 43 Croatia: Analysis,Documents and Data 42 41 in who Croatia, in community large a comprised Serbs, ethnic to messagenegative strong turning Croatia in nation constituent the 15 about up made which Serbs Croatia‘sindependence. for sought leader, nationalist populist a being who Tudjman, Franjo of leadership the with HDZ, of victory Social Croatian the became later which Social Croatian the and (HDZ), Union Democratic Croatian the (UJDI), Initiative Democratic Yugoslav a for Association the were 1989 March and February i founded were which organizations political three first the Party Communist problems. economic and social solving at aimed who parties center other join to ready party leftist moderate a as itself presented party the elections non attracted party independence. their for prerequisite a as federal Yugoslavia, of of reorganization favor in were that parties national of program the opposed it Yugoslavia, structure federal the of preservation the opposing on them insisting of However, some pluralism. political members, own their mobilize to trying hand other the on Western truly a have will they that voters the convincing solution. democratic preferred a than rather Yugoslavia of Party Communist Federal of level the

Fisher, 58 Hoare,117 Ibid Nenad GoranCular, ―Political Development in Croatia . ,43 SKH Coming to power HDZ adopted constitutional amendments, under which the the which under amendments, constitutional adopted HDZ power to Coming Zakosek, .

41 .

- SDP‘s electoral position and program were contradictory, on the one ha one the on contradictory, were program and position electoral SDP‘s « Political Partiesand the Party Systemin Croatia‖ in

- Croatian voters, such as Serbs and Yugoslavs. Importantly in Importantly Yugoslavs. and Serbs as such voters, Croatian ,

. IvanSiber %

of the Croatian population, would lose their status as as status their lose would population, Croatian the of ,

‖ (Berlin:Sigma

- 32 Liberal Party (HSLS). The elections The (HSLS). Party Liberal it 44 .

into a minority. a into 19

, 1997 , ),42 The - type of social of type .

1990 and 1992/93Sabor Elections in 45

This was considered to be a a be to considered was This 43

In opposition to the the to opposition In - democratic party, party, democratic - 42 Liberal Alliance, Alliance, Liberal

However, this this However,

n Croatia in in Croatia n marked the the marked

those those

nd nd of of CEU eTD Collection Group 47 Johnsthe Hopkins UniversityPress, 2010), 82 46 Baku. Moscowand both by vot legislature reque officially Karabakh Nagorno 20 February On 1988. February of beginning the at Karabakh Nagorno in started demonstrations Mass USSR. the of territory the in t lead will history on discussions new the of openness the how foresee not did however which system, communist the improve and renovate to intended (reconstructing) perestroika and (openness) glasnost of policy Secretar General the of result the extent large a to was This Union. Soviet the of stability the shook Armenia with unification the for Karabakh Nagorno of region Autonomous the Azerbaijan, of enclave populated dem mass when 1988, in movement later movement, and federation Yugoslav the within autonomy returnedbeto untilwas 1995. not territory,which thethirdof Croatian a loss of the a became area the when 1991, at lands, Croatian Yugoslav the the gained Serbs, 1991, Krajina of support the with Serbia, by controlled 25, (JNA) Army National June on independence of declaration Croatia‘s After 1990. in rebelled response

Joseph Miesczyslaw Boduszynski, , 1990 , In contrast to contrast In

MasihandRobert ),5

Armenia‘s path towards democratization started with the Nagorno Karabakh Nagorno the with started democratization towards path Armenia‘s .

ing

110 to 17 in favor of unification, which later was denounced was later which unification, of favor in 17 to 110 the same time, expelling ethnic Croats. The war ended in December in ended war The Croats. ethnic expelling time, same the

the Serbian populated area of Krajina (Srpska Republika Krajina) in Krajina) Republika (Srpska Krajina of area populated Serbian the

Krikorian, more demanded initially which movement, nationalist Croatian the RegimeChange Yugoslav in SuccessorStates: Divergent Paths towardsa New Europe 47

Armeniaat

United Nations protected demilitarized zone resulting in in resulting zone demilitarized protected Nations United - sted 83 o the re the o .

the Crossroadsthe ntain bt i Amna ad h Armenian the and Armenia, in both onstrations y of the Communist Party Mikhail Gorbachyov‘s Gorbachyov‘s Mikhail Party Communist the of y from from 20 th -

emergence of the ―the national questions‖ questions‖ national ―the the of emergence Moscow Moscow , 1988, the Soviet of People‘s Deputies of Deputies People‘s of Soviet the 1988, ,

(Amsterdam:the Gordon a to to

tur un ite e t a independence an to ned

with Armenia, with the the with Armenia, with nd Breachnd Publishing

(Baltimore: as as 46 illegal

CEU eTD Collection 49 48 after was It reforms. democratic the or Union Soviet the from independence the of o unification of issue single a K Nagorno of issue of the with dealing committee Karabakh basis the on 1989 in shape final a taking originated soon democracy, to transition (reunificaanmeanstoend a framedas be could context Armenian the in democratization So authorities. Soviet the from imposed obstacles any without Armenia to Karabakh Nagorno unite to is, that issue; Karabakh 1990 clai to Armenia for situation advantageous the after later and Sungayit, decision Gorbachyov‘s in Armenians against atrocities mass prevent SSR Azerbaijani the within Karabakh leave democratization. than reunificationrather national was conce those all with also but Karabakh, of problems the with only not deal to started later committee ranks its within order keeping and limits ‗legal‘ attended meetings opposition facto de a became population the of majority overwhelming of support the had which committee of independence

MasihandKrikorian, 11 Christopher laesi gop mre b Jn 18 facilitating 1988 June by emerged group leadership A Armenian National Movement (ANM), which played the major role during the the during role major the played which (ANM), Movement National Armenian July In

Walker, rning Armenian Armenian rning 1988, Gorbachyov labeling Armenians as nationalists ruled the decision to to decision the ruled nationalists as Armenians labeling Gorbachyov 1988, Armeniaand Karabakh: Strugglethe forUnity Armenia

by the crowd in the Opera House Square, which keeping within the the within keeping which Square, House Opera the in crowd the by

. to the communist leadership communist the to

in Baku. The frustration from the Soviet authorities created an an created authorities Soviet the from frustration The Baku. in wih was which ,

internal p internal f Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia. to Karabakh Nagorno f olitics. However, the primary goal at its formation formation its at goal primary the However, olitics.

tion) rather than the end goalitself.end in the rather than tion) ald Krbk Committee‘ ‗Karabakh called m independence in order to solve the Nagorno Nagorno solve the to order in independence m 21 . 49

Before that the Soviet authorities did not not did authorities Soviet the that Before represented a model of democracy. of model a represented

(London:Rights Minority Group, 1991), , controlling political affairs, by regular regular by affairs, political controlling ,

arabakh movement, which had had which movement, arabakh

There was no discussion no was There

the establishment of of establishment the .

Gradually this this Gradually

127 48 .

This This CEU eTD Collection 53 Watch,1994), 16 52 Press, 2003),57 51 University Press,1996), 72 50 inde facto de a is Karabakh Nagorno 16 February on Bishkek in signed state. independent an NKR proclaiming of support the with Army NKR The 1994. until lasted which forces, Azerbaijani and Armenian between Karabakh, USSR. the of disintegration independenc the with independence. and democratic issuesof reforms addedthe issue Karabakh Nagorno the to addition in Movement, National Armenian the forming eleve Those committee. the of aim primary the not was democratization this, from seen be can as Importantly, Moscow. on dependent being without herself by problem the solve system to opportunity an Armenia give the would USSR the from independence changing after only achieved be to issue Karabakh Nagorno of solution the considered Armenia, of president first the became later who Ter Levon like others The USSR. from independence claiming without was Armenian the of interests the defend people the and arm to meant that though even issue, important most the as unification the saw members its of Some changes. political and ideological important underwent committee the that 1988, Re the within Karabakh Nagono leave to decision Gorbachyov‘s

Ibid HumanRights Watch/Helsinki, Azerbaijan: ThomasDeWaal, MarkMalkhasian, .,

49 Meanwhile in 1991, the Soviet authorities not being able to solve the problems problems the solve to able being not authorities Soviet the 1991, in Meanwhile

Gha Black Garden:Armenia and Azerbaijan through PeaceWar and -

ra . - bagh!The Emergenceof the NationalDemocratic e movements in most of the republics, made a decision on the the on decision a made republics, the of most in movements e

Armenia gained control of seven districts in Azerbaijan Azerbaijan in districts seven of control gained Armenia The same year a violent conflict took place in Nagorno Nagorno in place took conflict violent a year same The SevenYears of C th 19 b Amna n Azerbaijan. and Armenia by 1994 , pendent state, not being recognized by any state. state. any by recognized being not state, pendent 52

The Russian brokered ceasefire agreement was was agreement ceasefire brokered Russian The 22

onflict inNagorno Karabakh Movement inArmenia

people. (New York:New YorkUniversity public of Azerbaijan in in Azerbaijan of public ,(New HumanYork, Rights 50 .

However, all of this this allof However, (Detroit: WayneState

Accordingly, the the Accordingly, 53 n intellectuals intellectuals n

Since then, then, Since - Petrosyan, Petrosyan, CEU eTD Collection followinghypothesis: the mo national result the of 2.2 democratization process. the influenced countries both of ‗stateness‘ of problem The Union. Soviet the from independence and democratization over issue unification the prioritizing unification, the supported wholly population the state, homogeneous nati the of unification demanding apparatus state the against up stand Armenia in Armenians the made country, neighboring the of borders the in inhabiting kin ethnic the Armenia, in contrast, In Croatia. of majority ethnic with themselves identify not nation, Croat the of part constituent a as (15%) Serbs the of status the removed herself Croatia hand, other the on However, Croatia. of transition the to neighborin turning this, to Due constitution. the by imposed was which nation, Croatian the within minority as themselves consider not did Serbs) (the population inner the of both present addition Armenia. of democraticconsolidation creates it Armenia, on dependent economically Being .

The First Parliamentary Elections and the Consensus the Electionsand FirstParliamentary The As we see from the discussion of these cases, the problem of ‗stateness‘ was was ‗stateness‘ of problem the cases, these of discussion the from see we As willelitesa I new emergencediscuss the thissubchapter the as of of frames In The prioritization nationalThe overof the democratizationquestion inconsensus g country in search of national unity, they created additional problems for the the for problems additional created they unity, national of search in country g

in Croatia and Armenia. In Croatia it emerged because a considerable part considerable a because emerged it Croatia In Armenia. and Croatia in

vements both in Croatia and Armenia at the same timetestingthe same at Croatia and Armenia both in vements

the failure elitesof tothe the democracy.consolidate

eiin f h eegn eie a hw o ed the lead to how as elites emerging the of decision

on, and given that Armenia was a was Armenia that given and on, imposing unity to people, wh people, to imposingunity -

LedTransition - al basedresultstransitionsin

problems for the the for problems

o do o CEU eTD Collection 57 56 55 54 the during First reasons. several had HDZ consequently. seats 20 and vote the of 34% gaining second the only was w economic the solvethe facedthat federation was with. problems to inability their of because public the among frustration much books' dusty in only read would people someth was socialism 'state that promising and symbols communist eliminating changed, have they that people convince and past, the from themselves distance to tried elections. the after only down set to left were whi elections, first the for system electoral of type the even democracy, new the of form constitutional the pace, transitional of issue the on opposition the with negotiations of resolution the start to legitimacy democratic needed much the acquire would victory, they the winning by Third, victory. electoral for chances their improving scene party domestic politica of hard own their to as well as Serbia, especially leadership, republics‘ First functions. several had elections parliamentary and socialism sovereignty, on referendum ―a Milosevic‖. be to were and rule Communist of multi first the were which elections parliamentary

on 42% on Ibid., Fisher, Cular, Fisher,

the Yugoslav conflict. Due to these reasons, the reformers did not conduct any any conduct not did reformers the reasons, these to Due conflict. Yugoslav the

― In In co the of surprise great the To 50 23 Politicalin Croatia,Development

. .

l changes in Yugoslavia. Second, they wanted to seize the newly organized organized newly the seize to wanted they Second, Yugoslavia. in changes l 90 h Cota rfre cmuit (DKH communists reformed Croatian the 1990 of the vote the of 54

Cular

argues that the sudden decision of the communists to hold hold to communists the of decision sudden the that argues –

55 places out of 80 of out places 55

mmunists, the Croatian the mmunists, ‖

32 ir campaign HDZ and its charismatic leader Franjo Franjo leader charismatic its and HDZ campaign ir 56 . , which played little role given that there was was there that given role little played which ,

55 in the the in

Moreover, in their campaign they mainly mainly they campaign their in Moreover, - party elections after elections party , it was a powerful message to all other other all messageto powerful a was it Socio - Political Chamber. SKH Chamber. Political - - Democratic Union (HDZ) (HDZ) Union Democratic SDP) called for the first first the for called SDP) - liners about the need need the about liners more than 40 years 40years than more 57

The victory of of victory The ing that ing - SDP SDP ch CEU eTD Collection 64 141 63 1992/93Sabor ElectionsinCroatia: Analysis,Documents 62 61 60 59 Fisher, 58 (46%). SKH 13,5 only ethnic the as hatreds on based not was it that is elections the about feature striking most the Gagnon, Croats. the of half only mobilize to able being therefore voters, Croat eligible 41.8gaining round first the in Parliament in seats the or change Cr the of independence democratic for ready communists anticommunists reformed the i.e. opposition, and ideologicallydifferent established Croatia‖. revivalof and independence Croatian for wish a government, of change for need the Milosevic, to balance votingofHDZforCroatia. By independence state, democratic ―ret againstradicalism. Serbian combat to unity asnational aswell historicalnaturalborders‖, within and people Croatianof the integrity consciousness‖ national Croatian Croatian s historical the exercising contemporary build ―to need the emphasized Tudjman

Ibid., ValerePhilip Mirjana Kasapovic,―Parliamentary Elections in Croatia: ElectoralModels and Their Effects‖in Ibid. Ibid.,48 Fisher, 41 D .

ragan Djuric,ragan Bojan urn to Europe‖, that is HDZ promised to create a stable, democratic civilized and successful and civilizeddemocratic stable, a create to promised HDZ is that Europe‖, to urn

139 t hud e oe ta bfr te lcin i ws led cer ta tee a been had there that clear, already was it elections the before that noted be should It .

% . .

t he Serbian nationalist party which portrayed itself as a defender of the Serbs, receivedthe of itselfwhichdefender portrayedas a Serbian party nationalist he

of the vote, winning only one seat from Knin, Knin, from seat one only winning vote, the of 64

Gagnon,

However, the Serbian votes were given to the SKH not because of the desire of desire the of because not SKH the to given were votes Serbian the However, –

60 the nationalists. 61

Munjin,andS

The MythThe Ethnicof War: Serbiaand Croatia inthe 1990s

hc as ipid ht D hd n liae ol o nue the ensure to goal ultimate an had HDZ that implied also which oatian state. Given that the turnout was 84 was turnout the that state. Given oatian

rdan parties, and the people had to choose between the governmentthe choosebetween to had people the parties, and 62 t 59 ate right. ate

. Spanovic,.

And the people made their choice.Andthechosetheir Theypeople and HDZmade the The final important theme in the campaign was the so in finalcampaign The important thewas theme the and Data 58

, Strankeu Hrvatkoj Second, the party promised to ensure the territorial ensure the to promised party Second,the ―Croatianvotersexpressed desi their 25 %

, ed. , it meant that HDZ received only 45 only HDZreceived that meant it , Ivan Siber,Ivan (Berlin: ed., Ed.Sigma, 1997)

(Zagreb,NIRO, 1990), 59 while most of the Serbs voted for voted Serbs the of most while

(New York:Cornell University Press), % , and HDZ won 67 won HDZ and , 63 The 1990and -

62, re to counter re Accordin

quotedin % , %

- of the of

called of all of .

g to g

- CEU eTD Collection 69 Democratization‖(PhD diss., Western Michigan Univer 68 Armenia,of 67 DragicaVujadinovic 66 pursuing al et not were 65 however, them to contrast agenda, democratization in reformed, although ones Croatian catastrophe‖. of brink the from away supporte ANM an only that believed They cost. all at war civil a avoid to wanted and society Armenian in polarization and interference outside growing the feared deputies Party Communist ―The note, Krikorian ANM, with coalition a created communists Party, Communist the of victory the Despite Armenia. of Council Supreme the in seats136 party's Communist the against seats 59 won which parliament, thethe determining rules democraticof game,elite the however, th Unity, Democratic of government Krajina in out broken war the Later, Croatia. homogeneous with blocs different two ideologically domina were elections d being independence, Croatian communist the that rhetoric aremovementsdestroying uni national the Milosevic‘s by influenced probably most but coexistence, ethnic peaceful

MasihandKrikorian, Arus Harutyunyan, ―ContestingNational Identity anin Ethnically HomogeneousState: the Caseof Armenian ―Historyof Armenian Parliament GoranCular, ―The Croatian Party System‖ in NenadZakosek and Goran Cular ose .

n h Ygsa Fdrto, n ntoait, h wr fr needne n ethnically and independence for were who nationalists, and Federation, Yugoslav the in (Cheltenham,Northampton: EdwardElgar Publishing Limited, 1997),461

67 ate it srn laes f organizing of leaders strong into parties There was one important peculiarity in the Croatian party system: as Cular states, ''the ''the states, Cular as system: party Croatian the in peculiarity important one was There n rei, h frt alaetr elections parliamentary first the Armenia, In

and the ANM leader Levon Ter Levon leader ANM the and http://www.parliament.am/parliament.php?id=parliament&lang=eng –

anti

et et al, - omns dvd fo te ey einn ws bobd y h ise of issue the by absorbed was beginning very the from divide communist

(Belgrade:CEDET, 2003), 201 . ted solely by the regime divide regime the by solely ted

d candidate could prevent the breakdown of order and keep Armenia keep and order of breakdown the prevent could candidate d

but rather relied on ANM to solve the unification issue. What is is What issue. unification the solve to ANM on relied rather but s (BriefsGlimpses) ,

―Croatia‖ in

ifferent from other post other from ifferent –

with all the parties, including opposition opposition including parties, the all with

reformed communists, who were for Croatia‘s sovereignty sovereignty Croatia‘s for were who communists, reformed 69 BetweenAuthoritarianism and Democracy:Serbia, Montenegro , Croa

The - hs hw ta te rein omnss ie the like communists Armenian the that shows This Pet tyofYugoslaviaCommunist partythe itself.and Handbook ofPoliticalChange in Eastern Europe , ‖ rosyan became its elected speaker. elected its became rosyan

sity,2009), 157 Official Websiteof the National Assembly of the Republic 26 .

the

'' onr‘ defense. country‘s . 65 -

communist cases in which the founding the which in cases communist This basically meant that there emergedthere that meant basically This n a 19 bogt h AM to ANM the brought 1990 May in .

, which , - consensustransition place. took .

urged

(accessed29.05.2013) 66

hs en ta, not that, means This HDZ tur ning the elites of elites the ning , ed., 68 to organize the organize to

As Masih and Masih As

Sten Berglund .

tia,ed.

CEU eTD Collection 71 Republic Revolutionary Federationandthe Armenian National Movement‖ in 70 wasArmeniato the Karabakhfirstif centralnotthe declaration:of the priority declaration,which of the text the to 21 the 23on referendum the after on 1991, September, force to came officially which 1990, 23, August on Independence of declaration nationally elites. the against alone stand to seemed ideology moderate his with Petrosyan Ter issue. national above democracy considered who forces other no were there facto de and of all brought democracy over prevailed which question national the that noted democratization. and conflict Karabakh Nagorno of resolution the for both were Ar The reformists that is here interesting National Council National justice; historical of restoration

Expressing the united will of the Armenian people; aware of its historic responsibility for the destinyof itsawarehistoric people;the Armenianof forof responsibility the will united Expressing the Artsakhis the Armenian name of Nagorno Karabakh Razmik Panosyan,―The Diaspora and the Karabagh Movement: Oppositional Politicsbetween Armenianthe the December 1, 1989, joint decision of the Armenian SSR Supreme Council and Council Supreme 1,SSR Armenian the 1989,December of the decisionjoint statehood positioning the question of the creation of a democratic society based on the rulelaw…” the of abasedonsociety of democratic creation of positioning the question the statehood the Armenian people engaged in the realization of therealizationaspirations of engagedinthe of people Armenian the Region of Karabakh of Region , ed,

menian Revolutionary Federation Revolutionary menian The elections of the Supreme Council of Armenia we Armenia of Council Supreme the of elections The .

Levon Chorbajian –

the Communists, who wanted to make reforms and were for unification, radicals unification, for were and reforms make to wanted who Communists, the “The Supreme Council of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Soviet Armenianof Republic the Council “TheSupreme

on the the on

ANM (New York: PalgraveMacmillan, 2001), 159 "Reunification of the Armenian SSR and the Mountainous Mountainous the and SSR Armenian the of "Reunification '';

declares

brought together the three different ideological groups groups ideological different three the together brought

is evidence of the argument, that the unification of unificationof Nagorno the argument, that the of is evidence

exercising the right of right the exercising

the beginn the

(ARF)

who were for unification for were who

st ing of the process of establishing of independent of independent establishingtheof process of ing

of September 1991. I want to draw attention draw to want I 1991. September of

The Makingof Nagorno free nations self to - re followed by the adoption of the of adoption the by followed re 166 .

all Armenians and the the and Armenians all , -

determination;basedon and moderates and -

Karabagh:from ,

the Artsakh the them together, them 70

It should be should It - Secession to oriented – –

who 71

the

of of – -

CEU eTD Collection 73 72 label The citizens‖. its are who minorities and nations other of members the of and people Croatian the of state national ―the as Croatia of republic the declared it Second, 1990) Cr. (Constitution parliament. bicameral and presidency 1990. December in approved were which 1990, July in to controltake them for easier it that meant elections 1990 the after parliament the regarding 2.3 organizationalincludingindevelopment,ones Januarythe 2000. amo competition the determined parties two ideological thethose throughout 1990s.advantage nation cleavages Croatian of between The the of prioritization the was agenda main whose HDZ, unlike policies, nationalist strong pursue o the as well as communists the sense, ideological the in However, war. the manage to cooperation of urgency the considering based was consensus the Croatia, parties other the with along issue, national prioritizing and unific demanding agenda, nationalist pursued Armenia of communists, case the the in Even reformed, although unification. national of issue the on elites among agreement the on sen ideological

Ibid. Zakosek The stateofemergency, The resultingconflictethnic from opportunitiescreatespolitical for elitesstrengthen to their .

The Oppression of Opposition and the Violations of ElectoralRules Violations the of and ofOpposition Oppression The

As we see in the cases of both countries the consensus the countries both of cases the in see we As After the first parliamentary elections, both Armenia and Croa and Armenia both elections, parliamentary first the After willfollowinghypothesistested: bethe thissubchapter In

and the adoption of constitution and the electoral rules. In Croatia, HDZ‘s vast majority in majority vast HDZ‘s Croatia, electoralrules.In the and constitution of adoption the

Cular,201 se, however, they were different. In the case of Armenia the transition happened transition the Armenia of case the In different. were they however, se, power country’sover power the politics,whilealsooppressing forces. opposition

- 202 .

over the state.Thus,constitutionaloverthe the wereamendmentsadopted g hm uig l eetos stig ai fr further for basis setting elections, all during them ng ―Croatian‖ in the Constitution and their status as a a as status their and Constitution the in ―Croatian‖ 28

could approve the Constitution the approve could 73

The –

Constitution 72 - R ad N. ncnrs, in contrast, In ANM. and ARF led transition took place. In the In place. took transition led

ther minor parties did not did parties minor ther tia started a discussion discussion a started tia

provided for strong for provided

to make it make to ation ation for for CEU eTD Collection Societies 78 77 76 Ramet(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2010), 260. 75 57 74 andConstitution arose.presidency lawLibaridianon was criticized.be not towhich individualf The strengt Croatia, of security created and positions national the threatening in Serbs the blaming HDZ, the for votes ensuring regime Tudman‘s support parliament. to later were who Croatia of citizens result a livingCroatsabroad ethnic allowed which passed, waslaw citizenship instead candidates own his installed and another after one candidates, opposition four of installation the veto to provision this used Tudjman argues, Ramet as However, majorities. Serb local with municipalities in politicians secessionist radical Serbian the against by confirmed be must office the of One powers. his increasing for Tudjman sovereignty, national declare and therebelto independence Krajina of Republic.the Serbs Krajina the for reason main the was above, mentioned already as Croatia, within minority

Vesna Pusic,―Dictatorships with Democratic Legitimacy: Democracy versusNation Ibid., Boduszynski, SabrinaRamet, ―Politics in sinceCroatia 1990,‖ in Zoran Kusovac, ―The Prospectsfor Change in Post (Summer,2000), 61.

8,no. 384 (September 1994),386 83 sn te htrc f h tra ta ws co was that threat the of rhetoric the Using Meanwhile in Armenia after the elections in 1990, in elections the after Armenia in Meanwhile Cro of parts Eastern the lossof The of which which of .

82 .

reedom was diminished in relation to collective belonging to the Croatian nation Croatian the to belonging collective to relation in diminished was reedom a

lot of lot

an image an some provisions of the the of provisions some

Croats from the USA, Australia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, became became Herzegovina, and Bosnia and Australia USA, the from Croats ― in 1995 in 78

for itself as as itself for

. the president, which was at first regarded as a safety measure safety a as regarded first at was which president, the

- 1996, when the opposition coalition won the mayoral race, mayoral the won coalition opposition the when 1996, atia had an enormous influence on domestic politics. domestic on influence enormous an atia had Centraland SoutheastEuropean Politicssince 1989 the defender of Croatian sovereignty and interests. and sovereignty Croatian of defender the - them Tudjman Croatia,‖ 29 osiuin ee dpe i te neet of interest the in adopted were Constitution

‖ provided that the mayors that were elected to elected were that mayors the that provided . 75 gives a detailed account on that debate. Theon givesdebate. that detailed aaccount

ming from Croatian Serbs disturbing the the disturbing Serbs Croatian from ming oevr aog ih osiuin new a constitution with along Moreover,

a large debate on the adoption of the of adoption the on debate large a East

EuropeanConstitutional Review to apply for citizenship for apply to , ‖

East EuropeanPolitics and ,ed.Sabrina ee its hened

9: no. 9: , a , 77 74 s

CEU eTD Collection Levon ed. 83 82 81 80 Books,1999), 40 79 on aggression the initiated government central Yugoslavian the when circumstances the in and opposit for source political and ideological the being Yugoslavism opposingnation be to government. of particip is democracy interpretations, European central and western the in while on, so and press,conscious speech, of freedoms asthe such negative freedoms, to refer to was taken ― 1994, until initiatives democratic the Constitution,whichof was 80 1995.in referendum by passed was 1995, which in draft its completed which 1992,in established country‘s the reflect would and which testing time, some of deliberation needed document a such that thought government ANM and Petrosyan regards With 1991. October in elections presidential the in victory party own Ter ‗Manukiaargues Libaridian that argued 19 July in passed was presidency on law Democracy and Local Authorities‖ Local and Democracy

Markar Melkonian UNDPHuman Development Report/Armenia, Ibid., Ibid Gerard It should be noted that the war in Nagorno Karabakh had its impact on the belated adoption belated the on impact its had Karabakh Nagorno in war the that noted be should It - Petrosian's overwhelming popularity, he withdrew his candidacy and started organizing his his organizing started and candidacy his withdrew he popularity, overwhelming Petrosian's .,

49 39 In contrast to Armenia, in Croatia from the veryleftistpartiesArmenia,beginning thewere contrast Croatiathe blamed from in to In allationofthein levels populationdecision of Armenia‘s in progress the emphasized Report Development Human UNDP Although

Libaridian, - . Chorbajian

40 – .

the country needed country the

National Democratic Union‖ Democratic National .

, ―BetrayedPromises of Karabagh Movement:A

The ChallengeThe Statehood:of Armenian Political Thinkingsince

(New York:Palgrave Macmillan),

- building, using the advantage that historically the left was the promoter ofpromoter the was left historically the that advantage building,the using n thought that he would be the natural choice, however in the face of face the in however choice, natural the wouldbe he that thought n

passed soonpassedafterthe agreement ceasefirewas signed.

a strong executive president elected directly by the people. As people. the by directly elected president executive strong a 82

states that in Armenia and other CIS countries, democracy countries, CIS other and Armenia in that states a ohr study nother 91, on the request of Prime Minister Minister Prime of request the on 91, RightsHumanand Development: Action forProgress ( . 79

With the votes of 83 of votes the With 185 30

- odce b te nentoa program international the by conducted making

BalanceSheet: ed. hrfr, cmiso was commission a Therefore, needs. - Independence

their in participation the process % o t Cota sovereignty Croatian to ion

Ter in to the the to

Makingof Nagorno Karabakh (Cambridge: Blue Crane - Petrosyan ensured his ensured Petrosyan osiuin Ter Constitution, osdrd s a as considered Manukian, who who Manukian, 2000), 35

- 36 .

, -

CEU eTD Collection 88 87 86 85 andWar‖, in 84 m prime as them appointing parties, the of members population wider the of interests marginalized the warfare: of policy the was that con that factors basic three highlights Gagnon regime?authoritarian the of con the using time same the at politics, state over influence their deepen and spread to rhetoric nationalist Tudjman of leadership the with manage HDZ did How threat. Serbian the from nation a Serbs the by occupied was territory vote. the of 57% with victory clear a claimed Tudjman that was which of result the vote, popular the by elected interests.owntheir in election each before game, the of rules the set to HDZ the allowed which law, electoral for guaranteed were elections subsequent in victories the and victory this mentioned be should it However, retur HDZ The unity. national the of suspension the consensusthe as from anwasintentional interpreted destabilization state‖. of the deviation jeopardy…any in was state the as long as government existing the of irreplaceability par across ―consensus of notion Linz‘s leftists. the delegitimize to HDZ for difficult be not would it sovereignty, Croatian

Poduszinsky, Gagnon, Boduszynski, Ibid.,31 Mirjana Kasapovicand Nenad Zakosek, ―DemocraticTransitions Croatia:in Between Democracy, Sovereignty In 1992, taking taking 1992, In n 92 hr as hl peieta eetos when elections, presidential held also there 1992 In .

159 The because of the manipulation of electoral law. The constitution did not set standards set not did constitution The law. electoral of manipulation the of because .

85 85 h pplto, allowing population, the cept of nation as the main ‗symbol‘ of the state, contributing to the establishment the to contributing state, the of ‗symbol‘ main the as nation of cept 1990/92 . .

88 87

hs a nt f ra srrs gvn ht h cutys one country‘s the that given surprise great of not was This

Sabor Elections advantag

e of their popularity HDZ called for new elections, announcing elections, new for called HDZ popularity their of e , . ed. Second, Second,

constructing of enemy images, eff images, enemy of constructing

Ivan Siber nd Tudjman pictured himself as the savior of the Croatian the of savior the as himself pictured Tudjman nd

HDZ to dominate policy in a war not reflective of the of reflective not war a in policy dominate to HDZ y ie‖ a itrrtd s a osnu aot the about consensus ―a as interpreted was lines‖ ty Tudjman , 30 31 .

on the one hand supporting the moderate the supporting hand one the on ned to power gaining 44 gaining power to ned nses o te te hn however, hand other the on inisters,

nie eoe h peiet was president the before unlike ect ively demobilized, ively tributed to that. First that. to tributed % 85

of the vote. the of - 84 hr o the of third

Moreover,

and and use 86 ,

CEU eTD Collection 91 90 89 Armenian 1915 recognize to Turkey towards people Armenian the of demands the abandon the criticize to minister, prime former Manukian, by headed NDU, like parties opposition the for opportunity great a provided ANM the from frustration public the as well as 1995) in solved was which supply, electricity factor (the war the after and during conditions economic The voice. given hig in served who party party oppositional in began rules with dueeach cooperate to to other conflicts personality differencesin and programs. ‗pro certain ― attempted ‗anti are they that allegation HDZ the to respond to enough 'anti as labeled thereby and national the on as discourse, their emphasis in question placed HDZ 'enemies'. as them label to tendency parties' ruling e the against Bosnia of HDZ the by HDZ the law electoral in embodied was power his Third, television. including media, owned s potd h right the upported

Ibid Ibid Gagnon,158 . . -

,53 dominated Sabor granted granted Sabor dominated nAmna teopeso fteopsto n h mnplto fte democratic the of manipulation the and opposition the of oppression the Armenia, In .

- to demonstrate their national credentials by u by credentials national their demonstrate to national‘ , as already mentioned ab mentioned already as , stablished regime. Those opposition parties encountered difficulties because of the of because difficulties encountered parties opposition Those regime. stablished - 159 1994, .

government‘s attack on the ARF the on attack government‘s ARF -

state the controlling e.g. policy, over influence enormous gave and wing policies just after the ceasefire), when a Decree of the President President the of Decree a when ceasefire), the after just . 89 her levels of National Assembly National of levels her of terrorism and drug and terrorism of

Meanwhile, no space was left for the Croatian opposition to maneuverto opposition Croatian the for left was space no Meanwhile, - ‖. rain. oee, h opsto ate tesle wr weak were themselves parties opposition the However, Croatian'. serting that they would they that serting 90

president and ANM that they ‗sell they that ANM and president

14seats Moreover, there was a lack of will among the opposition partiesopposition the willamong of lackwas a there Moreover, ove. ove. t o the 'Croatianwhich diaspora', the o The most blatant manipulation was in 1994, when the 1994,when in was manipulation blatant most The - 32 business, business,

unintentionally offend the nation's newly f newly nation's the offend . ies were closed down and there was no was there and down closed were ies ordered to arrest to ordered Similar to Croatia, opposition was not not was opposition Croatia, to Similar sing divisive rhe divisive sing - ra‘ In Croat‘. - out‘ Nagorno Karabakh, and Karabakh, Nagorno out‘ improved its improved

were were toric or by supporting by or toric ta te sometimes they stead

two mem two

mainly aiuain of manipulation

ound statehood ound reputation cuig the accusing 91 bers of the of bers controlled controlled

. The - CEU eTD Collection 96 95 94 93 92 fight to and conflict, Karabakh the resolve to promised Manukian However, policy. foreign refor issueeconomic the of on much opposedcandidates the of neither campaign, election dispersed police the and elections, the of results elections the of results the of favor in forces military the of voting the with problems the registers, voter with inaccuracies observed which OSCE, from criticism significant posit the in remained seats of majority I standards. international meet not did elections leadthem,asbetween individuals who politicalparties‘. coffee‖ drink and patron between competition ‗a be 1995would in elections smoke parliamentary talk, to gather frequently who friends well a not but individuals, strong only had history, long a had which ARF, and Party Communist except NDU) and ANM forces. external hostile self enabling and prosperity e 1988 in Square Opera the in made promises five those important most Turkey. critic with opposition relations diplomatic establishing of sake the for genocide vrnetl de nvironmental

OSCE/ODIHRInternational ObservationGuide, Ibid Dudwick, 88 Melkonian,193 Ibid . . ,91 ,89 h OC dcae ta te 95 alaetr eetos s el s 96 preside 1996 as well as elections parliamentary 1995 the that declared OSCE The . .

ized the president not on the lack of democrac of lack the on not president the ized ainl question national

eirto, rmtn dmcay n hmn ihs cetn economic creating rights, human and democracy promoting terioration, n alaet Te er fe, Ter after, year The Parliament. in

o fte rsdn, defeating president, the of ion 93 hwvr te osiuinl or rjce te eiin o eiw the review to petition the rejected Court Constitutional the however, ,

uwc i her in Dudwich - salse ielg ad hrceie te a ‗noml ru of group ‗informal as them characterizes and ideology established - determination in Karabakh, which were compromised in sake of of sake in compromised were which Karabakh, in determination

ekna age, ht N ad Ter and ANM that argues, Melkonian turn turn ArmenianPresidential 33 lis ta al h Amna partie Armenian the all that claims, n

1995 parliamentary elections parliamentary 1995 the

incumbent Manukian. However, the elections gained elections the However, Manukian. demonstrations 95 - ersa, ann 51. gaining Petrosyan,

– Elections

ainl independe national y, but rather for abandoning two abandoning for rather but y, ,

etc.

(September24, 1996) 96 .

. During 1996 presidential presidential 1996 During 94 Manukian boycotted the boycotted Manukian -

client networks and the and networks client hs te upcoming the Thus, 92 - ersa gv up gave Petrosyan

75 neetnl, the Interestingly, ANM % c, reversing nce,

f h vote the of (including s

gained the gained ms ntial ntial

or CEU eTD Collection HayastaniHanrapetutyun 100 99 98 97 Ter for Karabakh Nagorno Armenia‖. in situation the of worsening the and Karabakh of destruction final the to path shortest the is maximalism and compromise rejectio The war. is compromise to alternative maturity…the reached has conflict the when other the and victor the on have we Karabakh Ter – opti five showed He conflict. Karabakh Nagorno the of resolution the for suggestions OSCE the on opinion his introduced Petrosyan stay. its in be would it by, slipping barely was HDZ the which by margins the given and contests electoral future in factor additionallysignificant an be would that remained, population Serb entire the ‗If that argues, Gagnon Krajina. from population Serbian Constitution. the change unilaterally to two a reaching about talked publicly officials Kr of back Taking this used (no Representatives HDZ of House the The for elections early HDZ. call to opportunity to popularity of wave new a gave territories those of invasion makingforprerequisitereforms. Ter while country, the of structure cliental the against

Ibid.,171 Ibid. Gagnon,170

the package and step by step approaches proposed by the OSCE. the by proposed approaches step by step and package the LevonTer - ersa‘ dtie atce Wr r ec‖ wee e states he where Peace‖, or ―War article detailed Petrosyan‘s 98

In Croatia, In In 1997, in Armenia, a large debate between Arme between debate large a Armenia, in 1997, In .

- Petrosyan,―Paterazm teKhaghaghutyun, Lrjanalu Pahy‖(War or Peace? Time Thoughtfulness),for .

,(November 2, 1997) 1995 was the year, w year, the was 1995 jn mat ht D wud e netbe n lcin, n tp HDZ top and elections, in unbeatable be would HDZ that meant ajina

e option option e –

loser. It does mean finding an agreement based on what is possible is what on based agreement an finding mean does It loser. - Petrosyan and ANM was primarily to defend the e the defend to primarily was ANM and Petrosyan

–

compromise solution, which does not mean that the one side is side one the that mean not does which solution, compromise ,quoted 97 ons, among which the most realistic option was the fifth the was option realistic most the which among ons,

hen the lost Croatian territories were gained back. The back. gained were territories Croatian lost the hen The HDZ also had its own interests in dislodging t dislodging in interests own its had also HDZ The 100

inHarutyunyan, 172

- thirds majority of Sabor, which would allow them them allow would which Sabor, of majority thirds ute Hrtuyn ocue ta te a in war the that concludes Harutyunyan Further 34

- Petrosian mentioned stability as the the as stability mentioned Petrosian nian political elites came when when came elites political nian - 173

interests to ensure that Serbs not Serbs that ensure to interests .

T sle h qeto of question the solve ―To 99

Harutyunyan introduces Harutyunyan t

scheduled until 1997). until scheduled thnic kin, which which kin, thnic Ter n of n he - CEU eTD Collection 2003) 104 103 102 101 explainedin next willthe chapter. be pha differencesobserved this in However, the time period. this for countries both in democratization of lack the explain emergency of state the on based power of OSCEstandards meeting non and victories view same of the alsoheld communist the and wascommunist (hea Demirchian Karen elections special in elected was then Ter policies‖. and platfo electoral in reflected positions policy articulated but narratives just self national and injustices, historical of restitution war, the winning and H In territories. occupied some of return then and Armenia with Karabakh of unification or Karabakh Nagorno of independence jure de require Karabakh Nagorno of liberation the and war the during had Sar Serge Minister Security and Interior and Sargsyan Vazgen Minister Defence 1992), in independence its declared it when Karabakh Nagorno of president as served first who president, future (the Kocharian Robert opponents in peace of exchange in Azerbaijan, of territories occupied interests. Karabakh‘s sacrificing without reached be to had agreement the secured, already was kin the when and there, danger in was

OSCE/ODIHR, Harutyunyan, Libaridian, 48 Ibid., - ersa‘ rsgain n eray 98 Rbr Kcain eae cig rsdn and president acting became Kocharian Robert 1998. February in resignation Petrosyan‘s

173 As this chapter showed, the prioritization of the national question and the concentration concentration the and nationalquestion the of prioritization the showed, chapter this As to led conflict Karabakh Nagorno the solving for opinion the in contradictions Those - compromise .

103 . 177

arutyunyan‘s words, ―Thematic interplays between military victories in Karabakh in victories military interplaysbetween ―Thematic words, arutyunyan‘s

Republicof Armenia:Presidential Election 19Februaryand 5 March2003, .

Kocharian ‖. 104

. SE elrd hs eetos re u nt fair not but free elections those declared OSCE ).

in March 1998. In those elections he was competing with competing was he elections those In 1998. March in gsyan 101

. the return to meant was approach step by Step 102 35

They argued, that the military victories that they that victories military the that argued, They

Karabakh, which was argued by his by argued was which Karabakh, se came to matter later, which later, matter to came se FinalReport, (Warsaw, rms, official statements statements official rms, - affirmation were not were affirmation –

―not ―not CEU eTD Collection power. of change the reach to parties opposition the of actions unified the on concentrate and groups society civil phase transition of the completion and warthe startof the the followingthe hypothesis: pursuin movements society leadingcountrycampaignstowardsdemocracy. the genuine civil powerful as well as governments, authoritarian th analyze exte the concerns it over is as acting important extremely phase transition the as However, elites. the to process demands point some at democrac mobilizing although society civil the that showed chapter first the the allowing phase, consolidation the partiesopposition in factor important an became cleavages those and parties, the between cleavages clear were there sense, ideological the in question, national the on agenda nationalist the pursuing parties the unificationall issuenational of the on built consensus was that Armenia, of one is democracy towards Chapter3 In the second chapter I showed that the elite the that showed I chapter second the In While doing so so doing While thisconcentratesThus,chapteron consolidation thedemocratization, stageofthe testing of discussion the as chapter, second the in society civil the of role the discuss not did I Consolidation of democracy isdemocracy Consolidationmore likelyof withstrongunification of oppo y, after the founding elections founding the after y, em insofar as they interact they as insofar em

Consolidating Democracy through Defeating the Nationalists the Defeating through Democracy Consolidating .

to I n the case of Croatia, although although Croatia, of case the n rnal factors providing financial assistance to the civil soc civil the to assistance financial providing factors rnal unitedefeating ruling the nationalist par I will I

strategies while preparing for preparing while strategies

discuss the emergence of of emergence the discuss

―watchdog‖ of the elites to ensure their accountability. their ensure to elites the of ―watchdog‖ h peeusts o nue moh rniin I te ae of case the In transition. smooth ensure to prerequisites the

iharay unified already with

become 36 s

demobilized transferring the democratization the transferring demobilized the consensus was also was consensus the -

anti led consensus on ensuring the transition the ensuring on consensus led the 2000 elections 2000 the

war political opposition political ty. ,

as well asaswell movements in movements ,

sition forcesandcivilsitionsociety. the h cvl oit becomes society civil the the development of the of development the .

Moreover, Moreover, on the prioritizat the on iety groups iety Croatia

willing to defeat defeat to willing

I will I right after right strong g As far as as far As ,

I will will I also also

ion

CEU eTD Collection 108 Šmidling EncouragementforAwakening and Change: Peacebuilding in Regionthe the of FormerYugoslavia 107 Movements:Narratives andShapes of Three Waves Activismof in Croatia‖, 1991 106 ofJournal Historical Sociology 105 friends of network a was it all of first time: that at ARK facing activists. against violence the about awareness wereinitiatives broughtlight to during years,the projects,organisations, and turned itinto anetwork.'' twenty than more which in incubator an became ARK hand other the on and hand, one the on rights human respecting respecting on humaninsist would rights... whenARK we startdecided 1991, to that in whatsoever happening was nothing that out turned it and conflict, the about something do certainly andARKwaswhy establishedit important. f The conflicts‖. armed the of ending the to contribute to want who Yugoslavia of whole the from individuals charter its 1991, in founded so the was groups those among active most The elites. nationalist the by pursued politics war the against protests cultural and demonstrations in organizations th emerged 3.1 civilandgroups the explainsparties failure society the this addition,

Devic, Interviewwith anARKactivist Vesna Teršelic,in ―OneShould Use This Unexpected Chances‖ in AnaDevic, VesnaJankovic andNikola Mokrovic, .

- The Antiwar Movements and the Non the Movements and Antiwar The 2011: naBitoljanu Soon after th after Soon R‘ pbiain influenc publications ARK‘s would they that agreement, an on negotiate would institutions government and scientists that expected ''...we

136 Untold History) 106 roughout Yugoslavia, which gave a basis for the institutionalizationtheroughout of Yugoslavia,for the gave basis awhich .

― en Trei i oe f e itriw gv a eald xlnto a wy they why as explanation detailed a gave interviews her of one in Teršelic Vesna

Anti hpe wl ilsrt ta te ak f oprto bt aog h oppos the among both cooperation of lack the that illustrate will chapter the disintegrated states, including Croatia. Between 1991 and 1992, there there 1992, and 1991 Between Croatia. including states, disintegrated the

- (Belgrade,Sarajevo: Centre for Nonviolent Action, 2007), 79 WarInitiatives and the Un

e start of the wars o wars the of start e

10,no. (June 2 1997), 129 ( Zagreb:Documenta, ...

ttd ta ―t s n noml associat informal an is ―it that stated,

It was clear to us that we would work on nonviolent conflictnonviolent us wework on wasIt wouldclear that to I n principle, we saw ARK as an principle,initiative an wenonviolencen asaffirming sawARK toleranc and ― Antiratnakampanja 1991 d anti ed - Makingof Civic Identities in n the disintegration of Yugoslavia, of disintegration the n

2011), .

37 nationalism Croatian intellectuals and raised raised and intellectuals Croatian nationalism quoted

108 - ollowingpartis the of interview: his

- Nationalist Civil SocietyNationalist Civil called the Anti the called

tbs dniis or hlegs ht were that challenges four identifies Stubbs

in in consolidatingin democracy - Paul 2011:Neispričana povijest Stubbs, Polemos

the FormerYugoslav Republics age - War Campaign (ARK). Being (ARK). Campaign War ―Networks,Organizations, - d 84

15,no.2(2012), , 18

o o ognztos and organizations of ion . eds.

- 20 by the time the war the time the by 20 HelenaRill, Tamara ‖ (Anti ‖ anti transformation;

107 - war movement war -

WarCampaign inArmenia 14 2

civil society 0 .

in so regard, Piecesof that wethat ‖ were ition , e ande .

105 s

CEU eTD Collection (Washington,D ReclaimingDemocracy: Civil Society and Electoral Change Central in and Eastern Europe Humanitarian 111 the them 110 among government, 109 the with ties close had that organizations emphasi of violation the to attentions bringing Serbs, Commit votes,itsforand def stand non a developed it however, ARK, the facing disadvantages displa the and refugees the of care taking organization nationalistwerethemselvesfor asbeing and multiethniccomposition Yugoslav the of the states. provide to only started which politics, on than more methods and processes on more focused being time same values certainan ―to preserve resisthomogenization‖,overwhelming at to nationalist act, the and was ARKsignificance t the of that states non the of shape emerging into ―squeezed later it addition, In women. abused and people displaced time same the at individuals, and groups oppressed of rights human protect to aimed project defensive into transformed was it third, aftermath; its in was war when started;

SharonFisher and Biljana Bijelic,''Glas 99:Civil Society Preparingthe Ground for a Post Ibid Stubbs, - governmental organization qualifying for grants from international donors.‖ international from grants qualifyingfor organization governmental . ,17

Side by side with these organizations, however, there were many civil society society civil many were there however, organizations, these with side by Side society Croatian the in present organization Another Later, mass a into turn not did ARK Although active get war more the whenended. second, at that time it was impossible to talk about non wasabout it impossible talk to attime second,that z t evidence that there wasconsiderabl a evidence there that

ee for Human Rights.Human for ee 15 ing the atmospherespeech''hate of the ing .

.C.: ERSTE.C.: Foundation, 2007), 58

the

HDZ regime, regime, HDZ

eatthe in nationalist 2000HDZ

Established in 1993, it became the main main the became 1993,it in Established prsig h atvte o AK md te tr it an into turn them made ARK, of activities the oppressing he both discursively and practically a kind of a defensive defensive discursivelya kindof both apracticallyhe and .

110 andpolitical violence. e number of citizens in Croatia in citizense number of

38 mobilizing civic organization civic mobilizing

the rights of the returned Serbs, as well as as well as Serbs, returned the of rights the e pol. oehr ih R' all ARK's with Together people. ced

elections. elections. -

- ainls ii oit,ray to ready society, civil nationalist violent resolution of conflict,resolutionof the violent , eds., 111 a te rain Hel Croatian the was

Joerg

dealing with refugees and and refugees with dealing defender Forbrigand PavolDemes,

- that did not identify didnot that Tudjman Croatia'',in , its existence does existence its ,

109 of the Croatian the of

Later StubbsLater sinki sinki

CEU eTD Collection 116 V 115 114 113 112 so the organized more become improving. wassituation economic not the and corruption international wasspread community, widely from Wolchikshow happen‖. didn‘t war the of end the after happen would thought HDZ in change any dissatisfaction. also but democratization, of problem the to Croatia,indemonstration first the was This 101. radio down shut 100 when 1996, November in place 55%. of turnout elections the in participation of oppression determination, 3.2 hand, other government. from financ considerable received which veterans, Croatian war of the comprised War', of 'Homeland Foundation the Croatia, of Children the for Foundation alerie Buncealerie and Sharon Wolchik

Bunceand Wolchik, 60 Interviewwith IvanGrdesic , Fisher, 134 Fischer, 122 Ibid.,59 .

Get - called get out get called o ams tn er, uja ad D uig h reoi o de of rhetoric the using HDZ and Tudjman years, ten almost For - . Out

116

demobilized .

However, the end of of end the However,

- 114 that the of aae t sa i pwr msl de o h eetrl aiuain and manipulations electoral the to due mostly power, in stay to managed

113 The vi The - 112 the

poiin h dsaifcino h ulc a xrse i h declining the in expressed was public the of dissatisfaction The opposition. after the war there was no change in the HDZ‘s policies, Croatia was isolated isolated policies,was HDZ‘s Croatia the changein wasno there war the after eoe ht te ags anti largest the that, Before

- 's policies 's Thi of . -

Vote or We or Vote - c

the and s way Tudjman, on the one hand hand one the on Tudjman, way s the other civilother the organizatisociety tory and the liberation of the Croatian territories in 1995 did not bring not did 1995 in territories Croatian the of liberation the and tory ( - Zagreb vote campaign, with the united NGO sector NGO united the with campaign, vote

hold the largestpre holdthe

. (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2011),60

I .

n 1997 n As a Cro a As :

May21, 2005 violence . 000 citizens protested against the government‘s decision to decision government‘s the against protested citizens 000 -

, the Citizensthe

both the parliamentary and presidential election presidential and parliamentary the both at political scientist explicitly stated, ―t stated, explicitly scientist political at created fav created ) , in 39 - - ersne the represented election throughoutCroatia,initiatingcampaign oenet eosrto o te 90 took 1990s the of demonstration government

DefeatingAuthoritarian Leaders inPost ,

are O are orable conditio orable ons, financing those organizations, on the on organizations, those financing

bservin strengthening HDZ'sstrengtheningpositions.

ulcs cnmc n social and economic public‘s which was not only connected only notwas which 115 g

ns for the civil the for ns - I 61 n addition, addition, n

n the face of GONG of face the n orc ad self and mocracy -

CommunistCountries State Vow, Vow, State he changes we changes he a assistance ial uc and Bunce

society to society s had

the

, a

- CEU eTD Collection 122 121 120 119 118 2004 117 amendment elec of observation the concerning law electoral new a demanding Bosnia. in government polls t monitored elections, activists parliamentary GONG 1997 the observe to prevented being However, observations. important. vot elections. fair and free ensure to monitoring civil securing and laws and turnout raise to elections, local and government.the with criter main compri year. previous the HZDS, experience the where NGOs, a (OSI) Institute Society Open (HHO), Rights Human of HelsinkiCommittee groups. severalwomen‘s MonitorOrganizedto (Citizens Voting), Glas99(CivicCoa

Bunceand Wolchik, 80 Ibid Fisher, 142 Fisher, 144 Fisher FreedomHouse, r dcto, nomn ctzn o wo a te ih t vt ad h eetos were elections why and vote to right the had who of citizens informing education, er ) , 8 .

sing of 35 united NGOs united 35 of sing In January 1999, a meeting was organized by the representatives of ARK, Green Action, Green ARK, of representatives the by organized was meeting a 1999, January In nte gop OG a cetd n al 19 t cnut oetc election domestic conduct to 1997 early in created was GONG group Another Glas

and 121 ion

. . on Bijelic, 63 ‖ ‘s three basic goals were to were goals basic three ‘s

was passed by the Croatian Constitutional Court to allow election monitoring, by monitoring, election allow to Court Constitutional Croatian the by passed was

for joining for o te mngd o eet h Soa atoiain at smlr o HDZ, to similar party authoritarian Slovak the defeat to managed they how Nationsin Transit: Democratization inEastCentral Europe and Eurasia hd icsin wt te ciit fo Soai ray o hr their share to ready Slovakia from activists the with discussions had y .

119 .

122

117

GONG was registered as an NGO in 1998 and and 1998 in NGO an as registered was GONG Glas was that wasGlas

118

h Cota atvss raie te ls apin wih first which campaign, Glas the organized activists Croatian The

and

one month before the elections elections the before month one o Cota rfge i te lcin fr h federal the for elections the in refugees Croatian for

NGOs had to be non be to had NGOs increase public awareness about the 2000 parlia 2000 the about awareness public increase increase the influence of citizens in preparing election preparing in citizens of influence the increase 40

lition for Freeforandandlition Fair Elections) - partisan and have no connections no have and partisan 120

in i 19, the 1999, in tions it T

heir materials heir re (New York: FreedomHouse, ached 145 NGOs 145 ached after a huge campaign huge a after nd several women women several nd

focused on focused mentary mentary ― o range .

The he CEU eTD Collection 128 127 126 125 ProblemsPostof 124 formed/ 123 the starting Glass, NGOs of coalition mentioned above the by activities Those monitors. election train to offices regional thirteen establishing ''campaign, observing are citizens the ''We its initiated GONG vain. in was draft the amend to NGOs attempt the and illegally, working their in suspicion a was there if them, banning and fines imposing NGOs control to authority the state the gave government Croatian p were three in October and Parliament president of the with activistsmet years, well. as Electorallaw of drafts the ourefforts endorse West the by acceptance gain to leaders Croatia‘s of desire the and elections, unmonitored previously of result a as legitimacy lackingabout concerns latter‘s the HDZ, the with made workers GONG contact personal The us. support to reasons governing the but opposition the of backing the expected had We members. legislation. this of adoption party. the leaving MPs the of some including leadership r the result, a As fracture. internal o death the with coincided legislation this non

Fisher, Ibid Ibid SuzanaJasic, Matt ―How GONGwas formed‖, Official Website of GONG, - partisan organizations and individual observers. individual and organizations partisan . ., fin

h assed in Parliament adopt Parliament assedin

162

ewLongo, ―The HDZ's Embattled Mandate: Divergent Leadership,Divided Electorate,2003 in observation of principles those included parties opposition the with HDZ addition In (accessed29.05.2013)

137 ally agreed on the rules of the democraticgame.the rules of the ally on agreed . .

In addition, addition, In . -

Communism ― Monitoringthe vote in Croatia ir campaign even far before the campaign by the parties, using an eye and the and eye an using parties, the by campaign the before far even campaign ir ‖ .

125

53,no. 3June( 2006), 37

power struggles also took place between the right wing governing elites governing wing right the between place took also struggles power .

As Jasic note Jasic As

ed 126

as an amendment to electorallaw. to amendment asan gts ad oens wns f t of wings modernist and ightest

Thus, HDZ which ruled the Croatian politics for almost 10 almost for politics Croatian the ruled which HDZ Thus, ‖ , s f Franjo Tudjman, after which the party suffered from suffered party the which after Tudjman, Franjo f Journaldemocracyof 128 ,

―All promised their support their promised ―All

ute gtig ed fr h ucmn elections upcoming the for ready getting Further 41 124

l o ti teeoe hd t ipc o the on impact its had therefore, this of All http://gong.hr/en/about

123 all influenced the ruling party‘s party‘s ruling the influenced all

It should be noted that the adoption of adoption the that noted be should It

2, no 2, 4(October 2000), 161 Collecting 28Collecting - fourth 127 e at struggled party he . 000 petitions, GONG000the petitions,

Prior to this in 1997, the 1997, in this to Prior — - gong/how s including many HDZ many including

f oe hn 100 than more of s of GONG GONG proposals of

party also found also party .

- was - decision to decision 2006‖, - gong

for the the for - , CEU eTD Collection 135 134 133 132 131 130 129 voterthecleavage, whenchooses between twoalternativeand severalparties ones. not HDZ. 1991in government coalition the in only being experience, governing Cr the and Racan Ivica of head the with (SDP) Party Democratic Social the parties, opposition Instrian Peasant's Croatian theirlevel the mutualof trust‖. opposi of cooperation possible of u opened which condition the was cleavage political fundamental the of ―existence issues''. policy various on agreed and HDZ parties Post the of Direction Fundamental the on ''Declaration which legislation, The brought parliament the in victory HDZ‘s secure to election each before 3.4 which symbol. its as color orange

oatian Social Liberal Party (HSLS), with Drazen Budisa‘spresidency. Drazen with(HSLS), Party SocialLiberal oatian Cular,―Croatian PartySystem Ibid.,472 Bunceand Wolchik, 79 Cular,―The Croatian Party System Fisher Fisher, 156 Bunceand Wolchik, 81 .

The Opposition Unites Opposition The 134 representssignificant The dissatisfaction from the electoral legislation, which kept on changing all the time time the all changing on kept which legislation, electoral the from dissatisfaction The These These 'oe t cet a omn oenet poie nt o om caiin ih the with coalition a form to not promised government, common a create to ''vowed

and

six eortc oges IS; n te olto o To ta icue te w main two the included that Two, of Coalition the and (IDS); congress Democratic h pltcl optto ws hrfr cue b te polit the by caused therefore was competition political The - 473

. Bijelic, 61 opposition

. six parties split into two electoral coalitions: the Coalition of Four, including the including Four, of Coalition the coalitions: electoral two into split parties six

at (HSS) Party .

. .

parties parties was 129 ,

‖, progress givenprogressthat 210

fiily si officially The joint efforts of the activists the of efforts joint The to unite to 132

, ‖ ‖ 209

, .

h Cota Pol' Pry te Liber the Party, People's Croatian the

tion parties and defined their their defined and parties tion .

nd y hm n oebr 30 November on them by gned draft draft 131

the new electoral legislation in September1998in legislation newelectoral the 42 On this issue Goran Cular explicitly states, that states, explicitly Cular Goran issue this On i n1997

the turnout wasturnout lesstha the - Elections Activity''. Elections led ' common enemy common

, to the 75% election turnout, election 75% the to

s xlie i catr 2 chapter in explained as - 92 133 cl regime ical

under l at (S, n the and (LS), Party al Those parties had little had parties Those th Acc

1999, was called called was 1999,

n55%. the leadership ofleadership the ording to it, the it, to ording '

and increased and – p perception p

opposition 135

. 130 ,

CEU eTD Collection Conflictof andAuthoritarianism‖, 140 139 138 137 136 do corruption. political and repatriation refugee (ICTY), Yugoslavia Former of Tribunal Court International the among 2003, until implementedconstitutionalto wide foreigna range policy be politics,changes of and adopting of vote. candidate opposition two between place second the round on Thus vote. the of 22.5% with third the only Granic, and 27.7% with second, Party People‘s Croatian opposition. the for opportunity the enhaced elections it has shibboleth the as away‖, votes off a had had ifCroatia elections, presidency. the for Rame to According candidacy Budisa‘s support turn in would Racan and minister, prime later HSLS. and SDP of leadership seats, the of 30.5% and 2000, January of elections parliamentary party

DejanJovic and Christopher Lamont, ―Introduction: Croatiaafter Tudjman: Encounters with the Consequences Ibid.,269 Ibid. Ramet Zakosekand Cular, 455 nrdn te fie f h peiet ih h ofc o pie iitr eoig the becoming minister prime of office the with president the of office the wngrading

(two round elections) round (two , 139 HDZ , Racan

Given that there existed f existed there that Given With Mesic coming to power the new government announced the ―De the announced government new the power to coming Mesic With

, 269 DZ already lost its chance, and the presidential battle battle presidential the and chance, its lost already DZ .

140

(from SDP) (from ol nt oiie t resource its mobilize not could

uig 00 n 20 te eesr Cntttoa aedet wr passed were amendments Constitutional necessary the 2001 and 2000 During t, the Croats had no doubt that HDZ candidate Mate Granic would win the win would Granic Mate candidate HDZ that doubt no had Croats the t,

m pursuing integration to the Euro the to integration pursuing m .

a te is pae aig 41.1% taking place first the had Budisa and , people could vote vote could people , hl toe i pris o 5.% ih 3 o te et wt the with seats the of 63% with 56.4% won parties six those while Europe single round single

136

actional cleavages between the the between cleavages actional eoe h peieta eetos that elections presidential the Before - AsiaStudies

138 (from HSLS) (from . Therefore, Therefore, . . uig hs on, ei wn ih 69 o the of 56.9% with won Mesic round, this During s. bro

election law, like the US, but with the option of run of option the with but US, the like law, election

62,no. 10(December 2010), 1616 u t ensur to s ght their defeat ensuring only ensuring defeat their ght ihu origta hywr ―throwi were they that worrying without 43

agreed that Budisa would support Racan for Racan support would Budisa that agreed the two round electoral law for presidential for law electoral round two the

Stjepan Mesic, the representative of th of representative the Mesic, Stjepan ter vic their e - Atlantic institutions, cooperation with cooperation institutions, Atlantic

f h vt, hl Bds ws the was Budisa while vote, the of – rightist and leftist wings of the the of wings leftist and rightist

the second round had to take to had round second the oy gi, u t wih t which to due again, tory . ee held were

24.4% of the vote vote the of 24.4% - Tudjmanization

wny days twenty ng their ng he 137 e -

CEU eTD Collection 143 croatia EuropeStudy 142 141 factiona the not if impossible again interests their nati the from greatly differed background ideological concerns oppositionasit farthe parties, from v the and activists ARK98 Slovak from resources above the acquiring time same the at change, for citizens mobilizing start to groups party ruling the by sufficient having not of because movement social powerful a into convert to manage not did the 90s, of at beginning active was which society, civil The parties. opposition and groups society civil united Unioninthe July2013. European of member a will It become democracy. consolidated e. i. accession, the for criteria main the of one negoti Croatiastarted leadership, HDZ'srepresentative moderatewing.his During the was of leader the Sanader. Ivo of leadership the with institutions. d elites the that meant which 2010 and 2003 (Sabor). one unicameral Croatia in institution political dominant

Jovic SeeVikt Ramet,

(accessed 29.05.2013), and also, ations for accession in the European Union, which is which Union, European the in accession for ations

and In 2003 the SDP 2003the In Croatia's case showed showed case Croatia's 269 orKoska, ―Definingthe Nation: Constructing Citizenshipthein New Croatia‖,

(March29, 2011), Lavont, .

for defeating their 'common en 'common their defeating for

when when

material and informational and material 1617

HDZ

the Diaspora seats were reduced from 14 to to 14 from reduced were seats Diaspora the 141 - HSLS c HSLS . However, the end of violence created additional incentives for these for incentives additional created violence of end the However, . http://www.citsee.eu/

Another cesd h ntoa epai fr h epai o democratic on emphasis the for emphasis national the ecreased

that that oalition with the leadership of Racan was defeated by the HDZ the by defeated was Racan of leadership the with oalition The ConstitutionThe of Republicthe of Croatia

143 important amendment important the

iain nie h HZ itself HDZ the inside lisation

It should be mentioned that HDZ was reformed, and the and reformed, was HDZ that mentioned be should It

osldto o de of consolidation I also It . citsee through through resources e 44 my'. my'. -

study/defining

ery beginningeryofindepCroatian abolished On the other hand however, this would be be would this however, hand other the On onalist HDZ which allowed them to unite to them allowed which HDZ onalist the financial assistance from the West. the from assistance financial the , while at the same time being oppressed being time same the at while ,

to the constitution was made later in later made was constitution the to

orc ws civd hog the through achieved was mocracy clear evidence that Croatia fu Croatia that evidence clear - nation h bcmrl alaet no a into parliament bicameral the , Article, 73(Zagreb: July 6 de o hc sm o the of some which to due , - constructing 4 and to to and 4 CitizenshipinSoutheast - citizenship 3

respectively endence, their

mentioned th ,2010) - new lfilled - .

As , 142

CEU eTD Collection 146 145 FederalStudies 144 concludes, Panossian Armenia‖. in politics over hold its consolidated ‗clan‘ Karabakh ―the states, explicitly K Nagorno from not were who politicians influential two Demirchian Karen Parliament the Speakerof the assassinatingParliament Armenian the of building the into broke people armed of group a when 27 October on place took elites these by politics Armenian the of takeover complete elites Karabakh Nagorno the with stronger even became issue national logic‖. its to subject is else all concerns; st resign. to president the forcing so the together formed who Sargsyan, Serge Minister Security pe significant two other Ter opposed who team, president‘s the Ter 199 from Karabakh Nagorno of President Ter President of resignation the about brought Armenia in conflict Karabakh Nagorno of resolution the on 3.5 nationalistthe lea leftMPs theThe party. HDZ ts ― ates,

Panossian, 155 Libaridian, 94 Razmik Panossian,―The ofIrony Nagorno Karabakh: Formal Institutionsversus Informal Politics‖, . -

Petrosyan. Being an Armenian from Nagorno Karabakh he was among the first peoplefirstfrom the wasamong he NagornoKarabakh from Armenian an Petrosyan.Being Armenia As T he he

contradi the chapter, second the in discussed 11,no. (2001), 3 154 at o Karabakh of Party . - . ersa i 19. h nwy lce peiet ohra ws previously was Kocharian president elected newly The 1998. in Petrosyan

–

ders ders the FailedConsolidationthe

―the small region of NKR has successfully imposed its interests and views and interests its imposed successfully has NKR of region small ―the and and rsonalities were the Defense Minister Vazgen Sargsyan and Interior and Interior and Sargsyan Vazgen Minister Defense the were rsonalities consolidatedemocracy. .

lack of those three factors thoselackth threeexplains factors of

144

s non is

iaiin hrceiig hm s h ‗at o Karaba of ‗Party the as them characterizing Libaridian - - 145 dooia. aaah t h tp f h heacy of hierarchy the of top the at Karabakh ideological. ersa‘ plce twrs aon Krbk. The Karabakh. Nagorno towards policies Petrosyan‘s 4 to 1997, and later was appointed Prime Minister by Minister Prime appointed was later and 1997, to 4

As seen from this picture, the prioritization of the of prioritization the picture, this from seen As

and the Defense Minister Vazgen Sargsyan, the MinisterSargsyan,Vazgen Defense andthe The discussionTheArmenian offollows.casethe ction of opinion among the ruling elites elites ruling the among opinion of ction rbk. n hs regard, this In arabakh. - ald ‗pro called e failure of Armenia to defeatfailuretoArmenia e of

coming to power. The power. to coming - aaah group‘, Karabakh

146 Regionaland Panossian

th Further, , 1999, 1999, , kh‘,

CEU eTD Collection Law, 149 148 147 campai his in Ter for were who those regime, and Kocharyan‘s proponentsof werethe mainly who Sargsyan, Serzh supporting mistakes. his correct would he elected being of case in that and Armenia, to Karabakh Nagorno from elites those brought he that people, Armenian the to apologized he campaign his In break. year 10 a after politics and Minister journalisticlow on reliedArmenia favoringregime.standards, Kocharyan‘s t is which Television Public Armenian the including stations, TV existing the addition, In actions. government‘s the about information objective providing were which Tapan, Noyan and Al+ stations, TV independent two the of licenses the prolong Radi and Television of Council National the rule his During 2008. until terms two consolidationthe stage.in agenda abs the facilitated democratization the of phase transition the during game the of national rules democratic the the of establishing over prioritization question elites‘ the that argument basic my to us leads This stage. later ‗nationalunity‘. undermine issues Thesetheof toArmenian heart nationalism go 1988‖. since and security‘, ‗Karabakh‘s of cow sacred the oppose to mean would so do to because cleavage refl not does Armenia in politicalcompetition organized or public point, this At Armenia. Karabakhtsi the of hold the through Yerevan onto

Panossian, 157 ‗ M. Kurchivan,―The Armenian Media in Context: Soviet Heritage, the Politicsof Transition, andthe Rule of Karabakhtsi Democratizatsiya The question of national unity remains the foremost inissue the remains nationalunity of question The n 08 Kcayn a floe b hs ‗teammate‘ his by followed was Kocharyan 2008, In elections 1998 Since ‘meansArmenian gn reminded the public of the poor economic situation at the beginning of the of beginning the at situation economic poor the of public the reminded gn ae P later

14,no. 2(Spring 2006), 268 - Petrosyan, expressing their dissatisfaction against the regime. Serzh Sargsyan Serzh regime. the against dissatisfaction their expressing Petrosyan,

ie Minister rime As a result, t result,a As

from Karabakhfrom there has been no change of power in Armenia. Kochar Armenia. in power of change no been has there

ne f eortc poiin usig non pursuing opposition democratic of ence e a cmeig ih Ter with competing was He ,quoted in Bunce andWolchik, 192 he

citizens mobilized into two ideological groups groups ideologicaltwo into mobilizedcitizens 46

147

lt o te eeso oiia pwr in power political of levers the on elite he largest broadcasting company in company broadcasting largest he ez Srsa, omr Interior former Sargsyan, Serzh -

Pe Armenia politics even in the in even politics Armenia . rsa, h rtre to returned who trosyan,

149

o refused to refused o - ian served ian nationalist ect the ect –

ones 148

–

CEU eTD Collection http: Bakuin caused greata stirAzerbaijan), in 153 2008, 152 ( 151 (accessed29.05.2013 ) 150 required, is presidency strong region, government, of system Parliamentary the for ready was States Caucasus South the of none that stating issue, this on disagreement his expressed 2012 in still cam conflict. the of resolution the on negotiation peaceful and cooperation for self the harming resolu the to commitment his emphasized He 1992. and 1991 between Affairs Foreign of Minister as served who politician inarmywas thethe brought ofcenter the announced h results, election on. so and another, to candidate one from votes attributing in inconsistencies were there validcountersdetermining thewereshow reluctant votes, marked at same theballots,to the time count, vote the during however standards, international the to according smooth was voting of process the that stating While law. electoral the of violations massive declared OSCE victory. Sargsyan‘s Serzh ensured elections army, the including regime, developmenttheeconomic countryafterof Petrosyan‘s resignation. Ter during 1990s, Warsaw,

See―Bakvum Raffi Hovhannisiani metseluyty irarancum earajacrel Adrbejanum (Raffi Hovhannissian‘s speech SeeOSCE/ODHIR, SeeSerzh Sargsyan‘s See―Armenia: EightKilled after Clashesbetween Police, Protesters,‖ //armenpress.am/arm/news/700433/ paign he emphasized the need for the parliamentary democracy. However, Serzh Sargsyan, Serzh However, democracy. parliamentary the for need the emphasized he paign http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1079564.html ie ta a larg a that Given In 2013 Sargsyan was reelected. This time he was competing with Raffi Hovhannisian, a a Hovhannisian, Raffi with competing was he time This reelected. was Sargsyan 2013 In May 30 a military , 2008 - determination of Karabakh Armenians. He even traveled to Azerbaijan calling calling Azerbaijan to traveled even He Armenians. Karabakh of determination uge demonstrations broke out in the center of Yerevan. The current president current The Yerevan. of center the in out broke demonstrations uge . -

) ersa‘ rl, mhszn ter oe Kcayns n hmef i the in himself) and (Kocharyan‘s role their emphasizing rule, Petrosyan‘s

. PromotionalVideo,

ElectionObservation MissionReport:Republic Armenia:of Presidential Elections

emergency emergency aon o sae eore ws ocnrtd n h hns f the of hands the in concentrated was resources state of amount e tion of Nagorno Karabakh Conflict within the legal limits, not not limits, legal the within Conflict Karabakh Nagorno of tion

and banned media for articulating news about that. In addition, In that. about news articulating for media banned and ( November 23,2012

(accessed 29.05.2013) (February 15,2008), and this can be possible only in 2018, when the parliament the 2018,when in only possible be can this and

city,and 47

(accessed

as a result,asa ) , Armenpress http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGi2c .

29.05.2013) RadioFree Europe/ Radio Liberty

151 eight ,

After After o nue th ensure to

150 people were people

the announcement of the of announcement the 153

In addition, in his in addition, In

saiiy f the of stability e

February 19,2008 killed. 152 ,March 2,

- fxG3s

CEU eTD Collection 156 Armenia‖, 155 (accessed29.05. 2012). ParliamentarySystem of Government), (November 9, 2012), Sargsyan,Serzh it‘stoo earlyfor the CIS countriesand particularin for South CaucasusRepublics to establish aravelAPH, evsHaravayin Kovkasi erkrnerihamar der vaghe khorhrdaranakan karavrmanancnely‖ http://www.panarmenian.net/arm/news/131606/%D5%BE Parliamentarysystem Government),of November 9, 2012, 154 Croatia in ones the to compared that 3.6 p the for running candidates seven with sense, this in progress any have not did well as elections multi of head the in parties largest two the Republican the Parliament parties, minor some unite to managed ANM the and Petrosyan face tactics.called to face ins rallies traditional on relied and incumbents to similar programs introduced campaign 2003 in candidates opposition the that argue Bunce and Wolchik addition, pr to plan initial an was there 2003 In candidates. own their propose to preferring united, were agenda. democratic al which discourse political the in prevails reform. the for ready be will itself residential post.

opose a single candidate by sixteen parties, however those attempts at cooperation failed. cooperation at attempts those however parties, sixteen by candidate single a opose Bunce See―SerzhSargsyany dem ekhorhrdaranakan karavarman hamakargin ancnelun‖ (Se Aghassi Yesayan, ― .

it Challenges for the Armenian Civil Society Civil Armenian the for Challenges

fac It should be noted, that in none of the elections mentioned above the opposition forces opposition the above mentioned elections the of none in that noted, be should It This Ter Although parties. different from presidency the for ran candidates nine 2008, In

and

(Stockholm: InternationalI es . Wolchik,194 It shows that shows It that section section

Discussion Paper1 -

millionaire oligarch Gagik Tsarukyan endorsed Sargsyan‘s candidacy. 2013 2013 candidacy. Sargsyan‘s endorsed Tsarukyan Gagik oligarch millionaire

discusses the weaknesses of the Armenian civil society civil Armenian the of weaknesses the discusses .

156 on thehand on one Party, headed by Serzh Sargsyan, and the Prosperous Armenia Prosperous the and Sargsyan, Serzh by headed Party,

DEA,2004), quoted in Bunce

are not united, and united, not are – 154

AnAnalysis of the 2003 Presidential and Parliamentary Electionsin

s en rm hs ttmn, h ntoa qeto still question national the statement, this from seen As

the civilthe ( organizationssociety os h atoiain edr t pru ter anti their pursue to leaders authoritarian the lows 48

Slaq

(accessed 29.05.2013) on the other hand most of them are closely are them of most hand other the on ,

http://www.sla

and Wolchik, 193 tead of debating with the so the with debating of tead q.am/arm/news/100995/ , also, ―Yst Serzh Sargsyani` .

r zhSargsyan is against the NGOs

and and )

inArmenia the , (According, to

challenges

–

155 with , as,

In - - - CEU eTD Collection 159 conditions.addition,In nuclearthe power station was closeddown, andthere nowas electricitysupply in Armenia. 158 2008), 36 157 the for trainings monitoring election organizeto Development Sustainable of Foundation Urban the and Armenia, of Committee Helsinki the funded USAID 2008, In above. discussed already op of smalla number by supported only being this Vote‖, Your ―Defend and Vote‖ Your by ―Stand called campaigns large two organized they makingends pursuingmeet‘ ‗both than the about more concerned them making public, the demobilized resources information of lack nationally was society of manifestationth a thisis not However, conflict. of the resolution peaceful the and war, the of termination immediate the demanding Armenia, in movements anti no were there war duringthe demobilization,publicCroatia unlike the sidewith by Side elections the towards disillusion and apathy cynicism, public fair‘ and ‗free less and corrupt more considered been have elections elections fair and free ensured Ter of popularity mass extreme this the of and result mobilization a As Karabakh. Nagorno with unification demanding Square Theatre trans the during already as elites, state of first chapter.discussed the in actions transparent the ensure cannot society civil regime. independent authoritarian the against stand collectively underminespossibilit which the stateonly apparatus, the to connected

Bunceand Wolchik, 194 Asa ofresult the double blockade imposed by Azerbaijan and Turkey,Armenia suffered poor economic ArmineIshkhanian, h Amna cvl oit, s h scn catr hwd ot ciey participated actively most showed chapter second the as society, civil Armenian The The Armenian civil society became more active during 2003 presidential elections, when when elections, presidential 2003 during active more became society civil Armenian The .

strong public strong to hs i 18, hn oe hn n mlin rein gtee i the in gathered Armenians million one than more when 1988, in phase ition DemocracyBuilding and Civil Society inPost

- in the history of independent Armenia. independent of history the in oriented, but rather the poor economic conditions of the country and the and country the of conditions economic poor the rather but oriented, . participation and therefore those elections are considered to be the first the be to considered are elections those therefore and participation

activepolitical participation. position parties, position 49

- - Petrosyan, the 1991 presidential elections elections presidential 1991 the Petrosyan, SovietArmenia Moreo

as well as democracy in general‖. in democracy as well as However, all the other consequent other the all However, 159

e, n hs ead nt fully not regard, this in ver, (LondonandNew York: Routledge,

at that time, also fragmented, asalsofragmented, time, that at 158 e fact that the Armeniancivilthe that fact e

y of those organizations those of y ,

n ― and rae immense created - war 157 to -

CEU eTD Collection http://www.1in.am/arm/armenia_politics_78662.html?from 163 NGOs), 162 161 160 democracy. consolidation the for of th from brought experience of absence the However, country. the in change democratic promote to trying are that organizations few only are There that. on dependent become automatically c the in unification of lack is there Second, regime. established the of face the in enemy, common a have they that realizing and differences, ideological minor the abandoning leaders, authoritarian the defeat to willing t is it all, of First Armenia. in democracy of consolidation inSargsyan‘s presidency 2013 elections. presidential Serzh to support Part their Republican Sargsyan‘s confirmed Organization Society Civil 361 elections, Parliamentary funded. state being and NGOs of activities the of principle basic the Armenian million 500 than more got 2013 and Ministry c Armenia to experience their bringing opposition the and NGOs the supporting activists regional no were there assert, Wolchik, and Bunce as However, t at activists, NGO ooperated intensivelythe ooperated with Croatian ones.

e regional activists, as well as their lack of cooperation, does not provide the necessary results necessary the provide not does cooperation, of lack their as well as activists,regional e SeeAram Zaqaryan, ―HHnakhagahi ashkhatakazmy finansavoreleHK Ibid. Ibid., See―361 hasarakakan kazmakerputyunner satarum HHK en

Aravot, 195 n ac 21 wt te ead f h Cne o Ifrain reo NO the NGO, Freedom Information of Center the of demand the with 2013 March In As the analysis of the Armenian case showed, two factors are missing in the the in missing are factors two showed, case Armenian the of analysis the As of Finance of Armenia published a report according to which 31 NGOs between 2010 between NGOs 31 which to according report a published Armenia of Finance of .

(April 19,2013), e ae ie nraig neet n h eetos mn yug people. young among elections the in interest increasing time same he

ivil society organizations. Most of them, being financed by the regime, the by financed them,being of organizations.Most ivilsociety y. http://www.aravot.am/2013/04/19/232926/ 163

Moreover, some of them also announced their support of Serzh of support their announced also them of some Moreover,

50 drams from the state budget, therefore violating therefore budget, state the from drams

=popup

- in‖(361 NGOs support 161

(accessed 29.05.2013) , unlike Croatia, where Slovak NGOsSlovak where Croatia, unlike , he absence of the united opposition united the of absence he - nerin‖(President‘s Officehas financed

(accessed 29.05.2013) 162 t he Republican he Party),

n diin i 2012 in addition, In .

160

CEU eTD Collection nati of issue the on elites among agreement the on happened democracy. consolidate to elites the consensus of failurethe in results in democratization over question national the of prioritization the didNotablycriticalcoincide withjuncture thenot conflict, ofendthe butmuchlater. t exploring junctures‘ ‗critical for looked I regard, this In Armenia. unlike democracy, consolidating leaders authoritarian the defeat to managed Croatia however, failure, this Despite countries. both in the during dependence path ‗two the of failure until of phase transition evidence finding tracing, process of method the applying Armenia,conflictCroatia and in twocountries political of analysisdevelopments the historical of argu this developed I society. civil the and opposition united the of non of emergence question national the prioritization the that argued thesis the stages both of challenges the discussing Thoroughly stage. consolidation and transition during them facing challenges the overcome to able being a authoritariancompetitive regime. into them turning process democratization the on impact an had therefore conflicts those and elections, second the before conflicts interethnic harsh experienced test, this pass not did Tho democratization. of development sustainable the political promoting test‘ turnover serious undergone ‗two the passed havingsuccessfully elections democratic second them, the of time of the by transformations, majority the that revealed time countries, Conclusion While there was scholarly debate on the democratization outcomes of of outcomes democratization the on debate scholarly was there While h aayi o te eune f vns n h tasto pae ofre that confirmed phase transition the on events of sequence the of analysis The democrat During he major events that ensured the successful consolidation of the Croatian democracy. Croatian the of successful consolidation the ensured that events major he

- democratic regime, which can be removed only with the strong cooperation strong the with only removed be can which regime, democratic uig h tasto pro i te onre i cnlc big t the to brings conflict in countries the in period transition the during zto poes hs sae tr into turn states these process ization

- tu rnover test‘, which ensured the same regime outcome regime same the ensured which test‘, rnover 51

In the case of Armenia the transitionthe Armenia of case the In onal unification with the Nagorno the with unification onal h aforementioned the ment through a detailed detailed a through ment - ae transitions based se countries that countries se h tid wave third the

regime not not regime

the of - CEU eTD Collection theimportantin mostfactor not the defeat nationalists.of the ifone became democratization of very beginning from the system party Croatian in present were ideolo the However, period. time this for countries both in democratization of lack the explained emergency of state the on based power of concentration the and question readyfurtherfor democracy,not evenrecentlyfifteen moreyears than after the ceasefire. is Armenia that reason the as cited often conflictwas jailed.The were party the of members two ARF the when 1994, in began opposition the of oppression the Armenia In independence. and sovereignty Croatia‘s to threat SDP the of face the in parties leftist Croatian the t elected from where members its of many parliament, laws electoral HDZ forces. opposition oppressing also while politics, country‘s the over power their strengthen to elites political for opportunities created conflict ethnic from resulting and HDZ the between cleavages determinedcommunistsreformed competition amongthe stage.themin later the ideological the Croatia in transition, during differences Croatia the of prioritization the was agenda main whose HDZ, unlike policies, nationalist strong pursue otherideologicalparties didnot minor communists in the asthe the aswell However, war. sense, consensus the Croatia, in contrast, In parties other the with along issue, national prioritizingunification, demanding agenda, nationalist pursued reformed, although communists, the Even Armenians. Karabakh

using the advantage of the conflict the of advantage the using nto truhu 19s Tu wie n rei tee a n clear no was there Armenia in while Thus 1990s. throughout nation n T Anoth he he eald eerh f h frt tg soe that showed stage first the of research detailed . r ofrain eie fo te eerh a ta te tt o emergency, of state the that was research the from derived confirmation er

I n addition, the Constitution required strong presidentialism with the bicameral the with presidentialism strong required Constitution the addition, n

was accused of terrorism and drug and terrorism of accused was

was based on the urgency of cooperation to manage the manage to cooperation of urgency the on based was legitimized its power its legitimized 52

were he Herzegovina Croats. At the same time, At the Herzegovina Croats. he

demobilized by HDZ being being HDZ by demobilized

the prioritization of the national national the of prioritization the

through constantly constantly through - business, as a result of which of result a as business,

ic 1990 Since gical differences that gicaldifferences –

ARF and ANM. and ARF -

u ideological cut changing the changing h Croatian the considered

CEU eTD Collection explain organizations, society civil the of campaign united the of absence the as well as to regime, efforts collective their and parties opposition the between cooperation the of lack the that argument, my confirmed case Armenian the forces, opposition the and society civil untilnow.case Armenian the int dependence path the of manifestation clear a is which 1998, since the elections all in agenda political Armenian in prevailed question national the of importance the on the over question national Armenian the therefore and authoritarianKarabakhArmenia,interest in of prioritizingNagorno power their consolidated the their revealed Croatia, of ineffortsthe complemantarity of thedefeating author study case the on based socoiety civil the and opposition unified regime. HDZ the defeating in efforts collective their uniting ideologic minor their abandon to them allowed which HDZ, and parties those between cleavage political fundamental a exist not did there if possible be not would course of funding.externalARK‘99 and Slovak the of support the with audiences, larger attract to necessary resources informational public. the mobilizing successfully of stage earliest the a during organized campaigns democratization, antiwar in roots their having them of some Peace, Green GONG, Glas, ARK, groups society civil the Thus, democracy. consolidate to elites the le not did Croatia in conflict the of resolution The organizations. society civil the of unification the is one first The Armenia. in missing are that Croatia in junctures‖ ute, h dsuso o te osldto sae eeld w iprat ―critical important two revealed stage consolidation the of discussion the Further, As far as it as far As Ter after Armenia, In The

second ―critical juncture‖ was the strong unification of the opposition forces. This forces. opposition the of unification strong the was juncture‖ ―critical second

concerns the critical junctures of the Croatian case Croatian the of junctures critical the concerns - Petrosyan‘s resignation in 1998, the elites from Nagorno Karabakh Nagorno elitesfrom 1998,the in Petrosyan‘s resignation

ag get large Those groups were assisted by access to material and and material to access by assisted were groups Those - out - h vote the 53

itarian regime.itarian apin o te v o 20 elections 2000 of eve the on campaigns broader democratization. The discourse The democratization. broader Accordingly, the stuggle of the the of stuggle the Accordingly,

– ad to the willingness of of willingness the to ad

the unification of the the of unification the l differences al eet the defeat CEU eTD Collection democratic inlackconsolidation A of the justify to use they that excuses lame Nagorno many among of one just is articulation conflict unresolved Karabakh the Thus, nationalists. the of defeat final the until continued issue the however, 1995, in resolved consolidateconflict the Croatia to In attemptdemocracy. and rhetoric nationalist up give would elites the that imply not does prospectthefor any indemocratic consolidation Ar undermines which now until politics Armenian the in question national the of prioritization the n h ls motn idn ftetei sta h fnlrslto fte conflict the of resolution final the that is thesis the of finding important last the And

rmenia.

menia.

prioritization of the national the of prioritization CEU eTD Collection ―Anti Ana. Devic, Forbrig.JoergPavol Power Demes, and ―Civic and Democratic Shifts: Strategies Action on Waal, Thomas. De Party―TheSystem‖Croatian Cular, Goran. in ―DemocraticDevelopment Cular,in Goran. Croatia: TransitionFast Valerie.―Comparative Bunce, BigDemocratization: Bounded and Generalizations.‖ ValerieandSharon Wolchik. Bunce, Boduszynski,Miesczyslaw. BakvumirarancummetseluytyHovhannisiani Raffi arajacrel (RaffiAdrbejanume Killed Eight Armenia:afterClashesbetween Police, Protesters,‖ Bibliography Armenpress, in speech BakuHovhannissian‘sstirAzerbaijan), caused great in (Novembera23, 2012), March Republics.‖ 2007.Foundation, Europe Resources.‖in UniversityPress, 2003York Croatia Montenegro, Consolidation.‖ Studies Political CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge: 2011 Europe. , edited byJoerg Pavol edited Demes and 175Forbrig,,

2, 2008,2, Baltimore: the Johns HopkinsUniversitythe Press,Baltimore: Johns 2010

h - Journal of Historical SociologyHistorical Journal of War theInitiatives Unand ttp://armenpress.am/arm/news/700433/ BlackGarden: andArmenia War. Peace and Azerbaijan through 33, no. 70033,no. (August ReclaimingCivilandChangeinand ElectoralCentral Society Eastern Democracy: http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1079564.html Politicka Misao Politicka .

DragicaVujadinovical.CEDET, Belgrade: 2003 et Regime ChangeRegimein YugoslavStates: SuccessorDivergentPathsNew a towards

Defeating Authoritarian Leaders inDefeatingAuthoritarianPost Leaders 37, no. 537,no. (2000):30 - September, 2000): September, 10, no. 210,no. 1997): (June 127 - Making of BetweenSerbia, Authoritarianism Democracy: and 55

- 46 CivicIdentitiesin FormerYugoslav the

703 - 190. Washington D. C.: 190.ERSTE Washington

(accessed 29.05.2013).(accessed - 734 RadioEurope/RadioFree Liberty

– - Postponed 156. - CommunistCountries.

(accessed29.05.2013).

NewYork:New

Comparative

and and

CEU eTD Collection Attila. Marko Hoare, ― Arus. Harutyunyan, Identity―Contesting Ethnicallyin National an State: CaseHomogeneous the Frances.Undemocratic―DemocracybyHagopian, Elites,PoliticalRegime Means? and Pacts Gill,Graem. Philip.Valere Gagnon, House. Freedom House OfficialFreedom Website Sharon. Fisher, Fisher ―DemocratizationGrzegorz.Processes Ekiert, in East Europe:Central A Theoretical ―Political Dudwick,Postcommunistin TransformationsNora. Armenia.‖ in Tudjman Croatia‖,Tudjman in Reconsideration.‖ CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge: 1997. ChangeinandAsiaCentral Caucasus, 2010. 1989Since ArmenianDemocratization.‖ diss.,PhDof Western University,2009.Michigan Brazil.in Transition 2000.Martin‘sPress, Saint University House, 2004.Freedom York:Palgrave New Macmillan,2006. Foundation, ERSTE 2007. EuropeEastern ,

Sharon and Sharonand Biljana Preparing―GlasfortheBijelic, 99:Ground Post aCivil Society

TheDynamicsof Democratization: Elites,CivilandTransition the Process.Society PoliticalChangeinPost , edited by SabrinaRamet,111 by edited , Press, 2004.Press, Nations in Transit: DemocratizationinNationsTransit: Central in East Europeand Eurasia. , editedForbrigby, The War ofWarYugoslavThe in Succession.‖ The Myth The ofWar:Serbia1990sEthnic and Croatiain the British JournalBritishof PoliticalScience ‖ Comparative Political Studies Political Comparative Reclaiming Democracy: CivilReclaiming SocietyandDemocracy: Change inand Electoral Central

http - CommunistSlovakia Europeanist.toandNationalist Croatia: From ://www.freedomhouse.org ,

JoergPavol53 Demes, and edited edited b

- 135.UniversityPress, Cambridge, Cambridge 56 y Karen Dawisha and Bruce Parrott,Karen y Bruce Dawisha69 and

23, no. 223,no. 1990): (July 147 21, 1991):no.3 (July285 CentralEuropeanand Politics Southeast

- 78.Wash . New York: New Cornell. Conflict,Cleavageand ington D.C.: ington - - 170. 313

. New York: York: New

New New York: - 109. - CEU eTD Collection Lynnand Terry PhilippeKarl, C ChristopherDejan and ―Introduction:Jovic, Lamont. Croatia afterTudjman: withEncounters VoteJasic,theinSuzana. ―Monitoring Croatia.‖ Armine. Ishkhanian, anactivistInterview―OneARKwith Vesna Shouldin Teršelic, Use This Unexpected Chances‖ Samuel. Huntington, RightsWatch/Helsinki, Human Nationalof OfficialtheAssemblyRepublic ofArmenia,Website the Armenian of ―History of ―How of Officialformed‖GONG, wasWebsite GONG was Dartmouth, 1995.Dartmouth, andEurope,LatinAmericaedited Eastern by Europe.‖Eastern in and 2010): (December 1609 ConsequencesandConflict the Authoritarianism.‖ of 168 Routledge,2008 York: for NonviolentAction,Centre 2007. Yugoslavia in Press,Oklahoma 1991.Universityof 1994. /docid/3ae6a8b724.html http://www.parliament.am/parliament.php?id=parliament&lang=eng (BriefGlimpses)‖, Parliaments 20 Pieces of Encouragement20 Awakening Pieces of for andRegionof Change:Peacebuildingthe Formerinthe

- gong

, edited by HelenaRill, by ŠmidlingnaBitoljanu, Tamara75edited , - formed/ Democracy BuildingDemocracy inPost and Society Civil TheThirdinDemocratizationWave: TwentiethlateCentury. the

(accessedMay29, 2013).

- 1620 TransitionsDemocracy: Comparativeto SouthernEurope,from Perspectives

. Schmitter.. ―Modes inof transition Latin America,Southern Azerbaijan:

(accessed May 29,(accessed2013).May

Seven Years ofConflictYears in NagornoKarabakhSeven

Geofrey Pridham,167 Geofrey 57 Journal of DemocracyJournal of

http://gong.hr/en/about

Europe - SovietArmenia -

Asia StudiesAsia 2, 4no - 196. Aldershot, 196.Aldershot, - 92.Sarajevo:Belgrade, . London and . New (October2000): 159 www.refworld.org

Norman: the 62,10no. - . New York, New . gong/how - - CEU eTD Collection Robert and JosephMasih, Krikorian. Mark.Malkhasian, Matthew.―The HDZ'sEmbattledLongo, Mandate: Divided Divergent Leadership,Electorate, Juan. Linz, andStepan.JuanAlfred Linz, andJuanA Linz, J.GerardLibaridian, ―ElectionsWay. Levistky,and withoutSteven Lucan ―TheKusovac,Prospectsin ChangeZoran, for Post ―Defining Koska,Viktor. Kasapovic,Electionsin―ParliamentaryMirjana. Croatia: Models and Effects‖Electoral Their in nationconstructing EuropeStudy in Southeast 50 Siber, 1990 The inDocumentsandandCroatia: Analysis, Data,1992/93 SaborElections Breach. WayneUniversityState Detroit: 1996Press, 2003 1996. andAmerica Post South (1996):14 BlueCrane Cambridge: Books,1999. Authoritarianism.‖ ReviewConstitutional - TotalitarianandRegimes. Authoritarian

2006.‖ Publishing1990. Group, - 79.Sigma, 1997.Berlin: Ed. - 33. lfred Stepan.lfred―Toward Consolidated Democracies.‖ Problems of of Post Problems Gha

TheStatehood:ChallengeArmenian of Thinking IndependencePolitical since - ra -

- JournalofDemocracy 9:57no.(Summer, 2000): 58 citizenship theConstructing Nation: in NewCroatia.‖ theCitizenship bagh! The EmergenceNationalof the bagh!Movement inThe Armenia. Democratic - CommunistEurope

(March29,2011) Problems ofProblemsDemocratic Transition andEurope, Consolidation: Southern - Communism - new Armenia at the Crossroads.

- croatia

13, no. 213,no. (April2002):51

. Baltimore: The JohnsTheBaltimore: . 53, no. 3 2 53,(Juneno.

58 London:2000LynneRienner, http://www.citsee.eu/citsee

(accessed May 29,(accessed2013).May

- Democracy: TheDemocracy:Competitive Rise of Tudjman Croatia.‖Tudjman - 62.

006):36 Amsterdam: GordonAmsterdam: theand HopkinsUniversityPress, Journal of Democracy Journal of - - 65. 43. East European East

- study/defining

, edited, Ivan by Citizenship .

7, 2no.

- CEU eTD Collection withPusic,―Dictatorships Legitimacy:Democratic Vesna. versusDemocracy Nation.‖ Paul. Pierson, Razmik.and ―ThePanosyan, Diaspora Karabagh Oppositionalthe Movement: Politicsbetween RazmikofFormalIronyPanossian,NagornoInstitutionsKarabakh: ―The versus Informal OSCE/ODIHR. OSCE/ODHIR, andGuillermoO‘Donnel, Phillip Shmitter, andGuillermoO‘Donell,Phillip Schmitter. etal.Guillermo,O‘Donell, ―NationalismGia.Democracy.‖in Nodia, and ―BetrayedMarkar. Melkonian, PromisesMovement:of Karabagh in A Sheet.‖ Balance University Press, 1994.UniversityPress, and 3 MarcDiamond Plattner,Larry 2001. NagornoKarabakh European Politics and Societies European Politics Development AmericanPolitical York:Palgrave New Macmillan,2001. MakingNagorno of Revolutionary Armenian Federationthe Armenianand the National Movement.‖in Politics.‖ 19,2008. February Warsaw,30,2008 May Democracies Uncertain JohnsHopkinsThe1986.Baltimore:University Press, The Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, JohnsHopkins 1986

―Not Just What,Just When:―Not in andTimingbut Sequence Political Processes.‖ Regional and Federal Studies Federal Regionaland A ElectionMissionReport:Observation Armenia:Republic Presidentialof Elections. rmenianElections Presidential , edited by Levonby 178 Chorbajian, edited , -

Karabagh: from Secession Karabagh:Secession Republic,tofrom .Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsThe 1986.UniversityPress, Transitions from AuthoritarianTransitionsfrom ComparativeRule: Perspectives.

8,1994): 384 no. (September 383

142000):(Spring

11,3(2001):no. 143 - 22.andBaltimoreLondon:Hopkins The Johns Transitionsto Transitions from AuthoritarianTransitionsfrom Conclusions Tentative Rule:

.September24, 1996. Nationa 59

72 - lism, Ethnic Conflict and Democracy Conflict Ethnic lism, 92.

Democr -

201.New York: Palgrave201.New York: Macmillan, edited by LevonbyChorbajian, edited

- acy:TentativeaboutConclusions 164. -

401.

Baltimore: ,editedby Making of East East 155 Studiesin

The - 177. . CEU eTD Collection 1991 Walker, Christopher. 2000 Report/Armenia,Human Development UNDP T ConstitutionRepub oftheThe ConstitutionRepublic oftheofThe Croatia Paul. ―Networks,Stubbs, Organizations,Movements: WavesandNarratives Shapesof ofThree Sargsyany demeSerzh k Georg. Sorensen, Schm andWilliam Stephen Saideman, Ayres. ―Transitionsto Rustow, Dankwart. Toward Democracy: Model.‖Dynamicain Sabrina.―Politics Croatia sinceRamet, in 1990.‖ Ramet,ed., Sabrina in usalem, Rollin. ―A Boon Roleusalem,Bane?aTheorRollin. Boon of―Athe in CivilThirdandWave Fourth Society

tter, Phillippe.―Civil tter, andinEastWest.‖ Society York: Columbia 2008.UniversityPress,York: Democracy 2010,258 Eur Democracies.‖ Croatia.‖Activismin http://www.panarmenian.net/arm/news/131606/%D5%BE Parliamentarysystem against of 2012,the 9,Government), November Westview1993.Press, 1997.UniversityPress, Hopkins Themes opean Politics opean andPerspectives , edited Lisaby 14Anderson, - 285. DemocracyandProcesses Democratization:in andChanginga Prospects World

, since, 1989, Ramet, ed. Cambridge: Sabrina CambridheUniversity Press, ArmeniaStruggleand forUnity. Karabakh: the InternationalReviewPoliticalScience horhrdaranakan lic ofCroatialic , editedLarryby, etal., Diamond 239 Polemos

15,no.2(2012): 11 . Zagreb,1990.. Zagreb,2010..

ForKinXenophobia,orNationalism Country: and War.

karavarmanhamakarginancnelun - 41. New York:41. New UniveColumbia

60 Rights and HumanRights

ConsolidatingThirdDemocracies:theWave 28, 3(2007):no. 364 32.

- London: Minority Rights London: Minority Group, 262.

Development:Actionfor Progress,

(accessed29.05.2013). London: the Johns London: Central andCentral Southeast -

(Serzh Sargsyan(Serzh is 365. rsity Press, 1999.Press, rsity

Transitions to . Boulder: Boulder: . New New

CEU eTD Collection ―Political inZakosek, Partyand Nenad. PartiesSystem Croatia‖ the in andGoran Cular.―Croatia.‖ Zakosek, Nenad in SerzhSargsyani`APH, aravelYst evsHaravayindervagh Kovkasie hamar erkrneri edited by Stenbyetal.,Berglund451 edited http://www.sl of Government), System (November2012),9, countriesin South particularand CIS Caucasusfor ParliamentaryestablishRepublicsto ancnkaravrman khorhrdaranakan Societies.‖ ―Nationalism Zaslavsky, and TransitioVictor. Democratic Sigma, inDocumentsSaborElectionsandCroatia: Analysis, Data Publishing1997. Limited, 1997. Daedalus

aq.am/arm/news/100995/

137, no. 1 (Spring, 1992):1(Spring, no. 137,97

el - 475.Northampton: ElgarCheltenham, Edward y , (According Sargsyan,to fortooit‘searly Serzh the 61

TheChangein Eastern of HandbookPolitical Europe 29.05.2012).(accessed

Slaq, - 121. , edited by Ivan Siber,34 edited Ivanby ,

n in Post n The1990 1992/93and

- Communist - 49. Berlin: ,