Democracy in Croatia: From stagnant 1990s to rapid change 2000–2011
| Published date | 01 March 2021 |
| Author | Victoria Finn |
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512119863140 |
| Date | 01 March 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512119863140
International Political Science Review
2021, Vol. 42(2) 197 –212
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0192512119863140
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
Democracy in Croatia: From
stagnant 1990s to rapid change
2000–2011
Victoria Finn
Universidad Diego Portales, Chile
Leiden University, the Netherlands
Abstract
This article analyses democracy in post-communist Croatia 1990–1999 and 2000–2011. During the first
decade, political stagnation occurred under a competitive authoritarian regime. This ended abruptly and
there was a critical juncture, during which a free and fair election marked the start of Croatian democracy
in 2000. I first propose a causal chain to explain the election results, suggesting that the occurrence of
the election, combined with other necessary factors, revealed the population’s underlying preference for
democracy. Internally, this preference then served as a positive feedback mechanism throughout Croatia’s
rapid increase in democracy as it became a candidate for European Union membership and finalized accession
negotiations. Externally, the European Union influenced democratic progress, particularly via conditionality
policies. This historical comparative analysis aims to explain which factors allowed for a rapid increase in
democratic quality, positioning the 2000 election results as the main influence.
Keywords
Democratic quality, democracy preferences, political culture, critical juncture, Croatia, EU–Western
Balkan relations
Introduction
Despite the decay of democracy around the Western world – via low electoral turnout, political
disaffection, and electing extreme parties – when compared to authoritarianism, democracy is
superior. In this article, I juxtapose two periods within post-communist Croatia, during and after
the democratic transition. The first, 1990–1999, followed the dissolution of the Socialist Federative
Republic of Yugoslavia. Despite democratic stagnation, Croatia managed to establish democratic
roots. In the second, 2000–2011, democratic growth quickly occurred. Democracy, as a Western
European norm, is not the standard throughout the region since, even as of 2018, its Western
Balkan neighbours have not entered the European Union (EU).1
Corresponding author:
Victoria Finn, Universidad Diego Portales, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales e Historia, Avenida Ejército Libertador 333,
Santiago, Chile.
Email: vickijfinn@gmail.com
863140IPS0010.1177/0192512119863140International Political Science ReviewFinn
research-article2019
Article
198 International Political Science Review 42(2)
Which factors allowed for a rapid increase in democratic quality? Thereafter, how did growth
ensue? The goal of this analysis is to understand how a country achieves a rapid democratic
improvement, a ‘breakthrough’ in its democratic level. I undertake a historical comparative analy-
sis of the political processes of two periods (1990–1999 and 2000–2011) in Croatia. Focusing on
the causes of effects, I answer the research questions by pinpointing the factors present in Croatia
that allowed for a rapid increase in democratic quality, and briefly explain how growth ensued.
The following section contains a description of the relevant literature, definitions, and the case-
selection justification. I then explain the data sources and method of analysis, followed by a histori-
cal account of Croatia’s decade of political stagnation as a competitive authoritarian regime. A
more extensive section proposes a causal chain to first explain the 2000 election outcome; the
election results then contributed to the proceeding rapid increase in democratic quality. The study
ends at Croatia’s EU membership offer. The final section puts Croatia in comparative perspective
and suggests applying the applicability of the framework used here for future research.
Democracy and quality
At a minimum, democracy is a political regime with free and fair elections (Schumpeter, 1942).
While democracy is an ideal, polyarchy is attainable; its dimensions are opposition (competitive-
ness) and participation (representation) (Dahl, 1971). At the core lies electoral representation: elec-
tions allow individuals to choose political actors to make decisions on their behalf – in other words,
voters become the principals of their elected agents (Powell, 2004: 274).
Instead of classifying regimes as partially democratic, I use Dahl’s minimum definition to con-
sider whether a regime is either democratic, or not. With free and fair elections in the year 2000,
Croatia became a democracy; this corresponds to when Čular (2005) and Dolenec (2008: 25) con-
sider Croatia to be a consolidated democracy and Maldini (2016: 24) recognizes a rejuvenated
democratization process due to the election.
Once a political system is democratic, the literature on consolidation and the quality of democracy
become applicable; I focus on the latter. Consolidation is more than survival. It occurs when individu-
als view democracy as ‘the only game in town’ – and prefer it to any other political system – complete
with institutions and rules (Linz and Stepan, 1996). Despite having the pre-conditions to be competi-
tive, a lack of party competition postponed Croatian consolidation since there was continuous single-
party rule (Dolenec, 2008: 34). Yet, a consolidated democracy does not indicate a high-quality
democracy (Linz and Stepan, 1996).
Democratic quality, in its simplest terms, involves evaluating dimensions beyond those of mini-
mal definitions (Munck, 2016: 5). The present analysis focuses on democratic quality, which I
define as moving toward an ideal, such as a perfect democracy or polyarchy (considering Altman
and Pérez-Liñán, 2002: 86; Lijphart, 1999: 276; Munck, 2016: 3). Focusing on the minimal defini-
tions of democracy, I examine the factors that formed during 1990–1999 that explain the election
results, which allowed for a rapid increase in quality in 2000–2011.2
Defining democratic quality as moving toward an ideal requires a benchmark: hence the role of
the EU.3 While domestic actors took the lead role in democratic change, the international commu-
nity also offered training, funding, and prospects of membership to the EU and NATO (Fisher,
2006: 5). Due to their proximity, the EU has special rules for the Western Balkans, called the
Stabilization and Association Process. Its purpose is to stabilize (e.g. democracy, peace, rule of
law, the economy) through inclusion as EU Members (European Commission, 2016; Maldini and
Pauković, 2016). The EU’s special interest in and privileged treatment of the region is for security
reasons, regional trade, and to establish a global position for external trade negotiations (Maldini
and Pauković, 2016).
To continue reading
Request your trial