The Relationship between Democratisation and the Invigoration of Civil Society in Hungary, Poland and Romania Mehmet Umut Korkut Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree of DPhil Central European University, Department of Political Science May 2003 Supervisor: PhD Committee: András Bozóki, CEU Aurel Braun, University of Toronto Reinald Döbel, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster Zsolt Enyedi, CEU Anneci÷ime ve BabacÕ÷Õma, Beni ben yapan de÷erleri, Beni özel kÕlan sevgiyi, Beni baúarÕOÕ eden deste÷i verdikleri için . 1 Abstract: This is an explanation on how and why the invigoration of civil society is slow in Hungary, Poland and Romania during their democratic consolidation period. To that end, I will examine civil society invigoration by assessing the effect of interest organisations on policy-making at the governmental level, and the internal democracy of civil society organisations. The key claim is that despite previously diverging communist structures in Hungary, Poland and Romania, there is a convergence among these three countries in the aftermath of their transition to democracy as related to the invigoration of civil society. This claim rests on two empirical observations and one theoretical argument: (1) elitism is widely embedded in political and civil spheres; (2) patron-client forms of relationship between the state and the civil society organisations weaken the institutionalisation of policy-making. As a result, there is a gap between the general and specific aspects of institutionalisation of democracy at the levels of both the political system and civil society. The theoretical argument is that the country-specific historical legacies from the communist period have only a secondary impact on the invigoration of civil society in the period of democratic consolidation. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Acknowledgements vi ix Abbreviations xi List of Tables and Graphs PREFACE 1 1 I. The Argument 3 II. The Argument in Context 5 III. Historical Divergences and Expected Points of Convergences 8 IV. Methodology: Qualitative Analysis 10 V. Theoretical Framework VI. The Outline of the Argument 12 PART I: Laying the Theoretical Framework for a Discussion on the Relationship between Democratisation and the Invigoration of Civil Society 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Introduction 20 I. Re-thinking Explanations of Democratic Consolidation 24 II. Democratic Consolidation as a Process 26 III. A Working Definition of ‘Civil Society’ 28 IV. A Working Definition of ‘State’ V. Working Definition of Participation 29 CHAPTER ONE State, Civil Society, Policy-Making and Participation 29 I.1. Why is Participation through Civil Society in Democracies is Necessary to the Process 29 of Consolidating Democracies? 31 I.1.a. Accountability 33 I.1.b. Responsiveness I.1.c. Possible Hindrances of Participation in New Democracies 35 I.2. How do we Reach a Balanced Relationship between the State and the Civil Society 35 During the Process of Policy-Making in Democracies? 37 I.2.a. Juxtaposition of State- and Society-Centred Approaches towards Policy-Making 39 - Corporatism 40 - Neo-Marxism 42 - Clientela and Parentela Forms of Relationships I.2.b. A Model of Authoritarian Party-State Dominance: Policy-Making under Communism 45 I.2.c. Collaboration: An Alternative Approach to State and Civil Society Relations in Policy- 50 Making I.3. What Features of Civil Society Organisations Support Democracy? 51 I.3.a. Attempts to Extend Participation to the Masses under Communism: A Paradox by 53 Definition? 58 I.3.b. Features of Participatory Civil Society Organisations I.4. Conclusion 4 PART II: A Historical Perspective to Democratisation and Interest Group Configuration in Hungary, Poland and Romania: Conceptualising Convergence 59 CHAPTER TWO: 60 The Period Under Communism 60 II.1. Introduction II.2. The Period under Communism in Hungary, Poland and Romania: Types of State and 62 Societal Adaptation, Types of Dissidence 62 II.2.a. Types of State and Societal Adaptation 65 II.2.a. Poland 69 II.2.a. Hungary 75 II.2.a. Romania 82 II.2.b. Types of Dissidence 83 II.2.b. Poland 89 II.2.b. Hungary 96 II.2.b. Romania 107 II.2.c. Conclusion II.3. Projections towards the Democratisation Period in the Light of Legacies from the 107 Communist Period 108 II.3.a. Country-Specific Historical Legacies or Similarities? 113 II.3.b. Conclusion CHAPTER THREE: 114 The Transition Period 114 III.1. Introduction 115 III.2. Points of Crises – Decision to Open Up 116 III.2.a.Hungary 118 III.2.a.Poland 120 III.2.a.Romania 122 III.3. Transition Period: Types of Transition 123 III.3.a.Poland 125 III.3.a.Hungary 128 III.3.a.Romania 130 III.4. Conclusion CHAPTER FOUR: 132 The Democratisation Period 132 IV.I. Introduction 133 IV.2. The Democratisation Period 134 IV.2.a.The Democratisation Period in Poland and Hungary 134 - Passivity and Provisionality - Elite continuity, convergence and emergence, and the likely impact of these 138 processes on post-transition politics of Poland and Hungary 144 - The Extent of Elitism and Its Effects in Polish and Hungarian Politics 148 - Autonomy of Civil Society Organisations 148 - Configurations and Modelling of Civil Society 152 5 - Forms of Policy-Making 165 - Poland and Hungary Conclusions 168 IV.2.b. The Democratisation Period in Romania 170 - The Period until the 1996 elections 175 - The Period in the aftermath of 1996 elections 175 - Forms of Policy-Making in Romania PART III: Conclusion: Testing the Relationship between Democratisation and 182 Invigoration of Civil Society 183 Chapter Five: 183 185 A Discussion on the Current Position of Civil Society in Hungary, Poland and 186 Romania 188 189 V.1. Introduction 194 V.2. Operationalisation of Hypotheses 197 V.2.a.Forms of Policy-Making and Autonomy of Interest Groups from the Political Society 198 - Step I: Cultural Capital and Its Transformation into Politically-Relevant Social 200 Capital - Step II: Politically Relevant Social Capital and Cultural Capital, and their 203 transformation into Political Capital V.2.a.Hungary V.2.a.Poland 208 V.2.a.Romania V.2.a.Conclusion V.2.b.An Evaluation of Internal Decision-making within Interest Groups from a Participatory Point of View - Symbolic or Concrete: What is the Extent of Internal Democracy in Civil 215 Society Organisations in Hungary, Poland and Romania? 227 237 Chapter Six: 240 Tracing Links from the Period of Communism to the Democratisation Period 246 in (each of) Hungary, Poland and Romania: An Explanation for the 251 Relationship between Democratisation and Invigoration of Civil Society TABLES GRAPHS APPENDIX I APPENDIX II REFERENCES 6 7 Acknowledgements It was Ádám and Bogi who first introduced me to Hungary and Eastern Europe, already during secondary school in Turkey. Our friendship over all these years continued with my increasing interest in their country and ultimately, my move to Budapest for my Ph.D. Ádám has been of great help at all stages of my life, especially during my time in Budapest. I owe him the reason for my academic specialisation and the desire to learn his language. Central European University gave me a unique chance to learn about the region, to meet regional specialists, and to establish contacts with people from all over East-Central Europe. This opportunity has been fundamental to improve my understanding, as an outsider, of culture, life and socio-political events in East-Central Europe. With regards to Hungary, my Hungarian teacher Dániel Jakócs motivated and encouraged me to learn the language and to appreciate Hungarian culture and history. I consider myself very lucky for having spent, on and off, five years in Budapest. To this extent, I would like thank Éva Lafferthon, Nenad Dimitrijeviü, Anna Leander, Stefano Guzzini and Gábor Tóka. They have been very helpful to me all throughout this process. Especially, Gábor has been my inspiration since I started to work on my thesis. I am indebted to him for his countless comments on my thesis and his inexhaustible push for perfection. Nevertheless, I owe my thesis to three people. I don’t believe that I would have come this far had it not been for Lucinia. She created my special ‘work and study’ scheme at the Institute for Educational Policy (IEP) at Open Society Institute, which became more of a study programme than its work component. What started as an assistant/co-ordinator relationship between us has turned into a strong friendship over the years, as we have supported each other through various crises. She has remained an optimist under even the direst circumstances. She was always there when I needed encouragement. I guess I deserve to be called a ‘good fighter’ in her own words, but I would never have been as good a fighter had it not been for her support. Thanks Lucinia! András’s continuous trust in me and in my work made me complete my thesis. Had it not been for his stimulation and care, I would not have come this far. He showed me how to fill the gaps in my argument and to regain my confidence in my work. He was there to take me forward just as I needed guidance and supervision. Thanks András! Aaron and I, we grew into this Ph.D. together. Having met each other at the very start of this process, our relationship has continued all the way. I owe him countless remarks, ideas, and corrections on my thesis. He became as much an expert on civil society as well as Hungarian, Polish and Romanian politics as I improved my understanding of Eastern Europe. There has always been something attractive for us in this region, and this attraction brought us together. He accompanied me all the way along this Ph.D. Regardless of distances, I always felt his love, closeness and support.