{"title":"民主化之路:斯洛伐克的曲折,捷克的不曲折","authors":"Paula M. Pickering","doi":"10.29654/TJD.200607.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Students of political development have not always been good at understanding drastic political change (Myron Weiner and Samuel P. Huntington, Understanding Political Development, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1994, 33). Kevin Deegan-Krause contributes to efforts to remedy this shortcoming. He seeks to answer a fascinating puzzle of post-communist transition: What can account for both the divergence and later reconvergence of democratic development in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia? Not all East European countries sped along a unidirectional path toward liberal democracy when they threw off Soviet-backed communist rule. The zig-zag path of democratization that some post-communist states, such as Slovakia and Ukraine, have taken is a particularly interesting and important aspect of the political transition in Central and Eastern Europe. Unlike some of the cases in Latin America, the culprits for Slovakia’s and some neighbors’ regressions are not military leaders or economic downturns. Deegan-Krause adds to books, such as V.P. Gagnon’s The Myth of Ethnic War: Serbia and Croatia in the 1990s (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005) that help to understand why some countries, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, actually regressed from the process of democratization before accelerating their progress toward democratic consolidation. Both resist blaming the attitudes of the general population for regression or showering the international community’s policies with praise for correcting them. They instead propose more complex models that focus on the dynamics of political competition in post-communist transitions. Deegan-Krause offers a convincing model that highlights the counterproductive role played in new democratizers by strategic politicians, who, when significantly challenged by the dynamics of political competition and weakly constrained by young democratic institutions, choose to exacerbate popular attitudinal differences in the name of accumulating power.","PeriodicalId":403398,"journal":{"name":"Taiwan journal of democracy","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Path of Democratization: Circuitous in Slovakia But Not in the Czech Republic\",\"authors\":\"Paula M. Pickering\",\"doi\":\"10.29654/TJD.200607.0010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Students of political development have not always been good at understanding drastic political change (Myron Weiner and Samuel P. Huntington, Understanding Political Development, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1994, 33). Kevin Deegan-Krause contributes to efforts to remedy this shortcoming. He seeks to answer a fascinating puzzle of post-communist transition: What can account for both the divergence and later reconvergence of democratic development in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia? Not all East European countries sped along a unidirectional path toward liberal democracy when they threw off Soviet-backed communist rule. The zig-zag path of democratization that some post-communist states, such as Slovakia and Ukraine, have taken is a particularly interesting and important aspect of the political transition in Central and Eastern Europe. Unlike some of the cases in Latin America, the culprits for Slovakia’s and some neighbors’ regressions are not military leaders or economic downturns. Deegan-Krause adds to books, such as V.P. Gagnon’s The Myth of Ethnic War: Serbia and Croatia in the 1990s (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005) that help to understand why some countries, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, actually regressed from the process of democratization before accelerating their progress toward democratic consolidation. Both resist blaming the attitudes of the general population for regression or showering the international community’s policies with praise for correcting them. They instead propose more complex models that focus on the dynamics of political competition in post-communist transitions. Deegan-Krause offers a convincing model that highlights the counterproductive role played in new democratizers by strategic politicians, who, when significantly challenged by the dynamics of political competition and weakly constrained by young democratic institutions, choose to exacerbate popular attitudinal differences in the name of accumulating power.\",\"PeriodicalId\":403398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Taiwan journal of democracy\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Taiwan journal of democracy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29654/TJD.200607.0010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Taiwan journal of democracy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29654/TJD.200607.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究政治发展的学生并不总是善于理解剧烈的政治变化(Myron Weiner和Samuel P. Huntington, understanding political development, Prospect Heights, IL: wavand Press, 1994,33)。Kevin Deegan-Krause为弥补这一缺陷做出了贡献。他试图回答后共产主义转型的一个令人着迷的谜题:什么可以解释捷克共和国和斯洛伐克民主发展的分歧和后来的重新融合?在摆脱苏联支持的共产主义统治后,并非所有东欧国家都沿着单向的道路加速走向自由民主。一些后共产主义国家,如斯洛伐克和乌克兰,所走的曲折的民主化之路是中欧和东欧政治转型的一个特别有趣和重要的方面。与拉丁美洲的一些案例不同,斯洛伐克和一些邻国经济衰退的罪魁祸首不是军事领导人,也不是经济衰退。Deegan-Krause在诸如V.P. Gagnon的《种族战争的神话:1990年代的塞尔维亚和克罗地亚》(伊萨卡,纽约:康奈尔大学出版社,2005)等书中补充道,这些书有助于理解为什么一些国家在柏林墙倒塌后,实际上在加速民主巩固之前从民主化进程中倒退。双方都拒绝将倒退归咎于一般民众的态度,也不愿对国际社会的政策大加赞扬,因为它们得到了纠正。相反,他们提出了更复杂的模型,专注于后共产主义转型时期政治竞争的动态。Deegan-Krause提供了一个令人信服的模型,强调了战略政治家在新民主主义者中所起的适得其反的作用,当受到政治竞争动态的重大挑战和年轻民主制度的微弱约束时,他们选择以积累权力的名义加剧民众的态度差异。
Path of Democratization: Circuitous in Slovakia But Not in the Czech Republic
Students of political development have not always been good at understanding drastic political change (Myron Weiner and Samuel P. Huntington, Understanding Political Development, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1994, 33). Kevin Deegan-Krause contributes to efforts to remedy this shortcoming. He seeks to answer a fascinating puzzle of post-communist transition: What can account for both the divergence and later reconvergence of democratic development in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia? Not all East European countries sped along a unidirectional path toward liberal democracy when they threw off Soviet-backed communist rule. The zig-zag path of democratization that some post-communist states, such as Slovakia and Ukraine, have taken is a particularly interesting and important aspect of the political transition in Central and Eastern Europe. Unlike some of the cases in Latin America, the culprits for Slovakia’s and some neighbors’ regressions are not military leaders or economic downturns. Deegan-Krause adds to books, such as V.P. Gagnon’s The Myth of Ethnic War: Serbia and Croatia in the 1990s (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005) that help to understand why some countries, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, actually regressed from the process of democratization before accelerating their progress toward democratic consolidation. Both resist blaming the attitudes of the general population for regression or showering the international community’s policies with praise for correcting them. They instead propose more complex models that focus on the dynamics of political competition in post-communist transitions. Deegan-Krause offers a convincing model that highlights the counterproductive role played in new democratizers by strategic politicians, who, when significantly challenged by the dynamics of political competition and weakly constrained by young democratic institutions, choose to exacerbate popular attitudinal differences in the name of accumulating power.