Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, America.gov, as part of its feature “The Evolving Work of Democracy,” is asking academics and journalists from the United States and elsewhere to comment on the challenges to democracy that still lay ahead for countries of the former Eastern Bloc. What follows are their responses – and yours are welcome as well.

What is the greatest challenge to democracy in the Czech Republic?

The Czech Republic has an impressive record of democratic governance in a region that for the most part did not easily embrace democracy. As a part of the Austrian half of the Habsburg Empire it was exposed to a more liberal political system than other Central European societies living under more authoritarian regimes. During the interwar period, Czechoslovakia, led by Presidents Masaryk and Benesz, achieved a level of democracy far in advance of the regional standard. In fact, in the late 1930s it was the only functioning democracy in the region.

Nazi and Soviet occupations that lasted until 1989 did considerable damage to the society’s democratic credentials. However, despite that fact, at the end of the communist era the Czechs (within the Czechoslovak state) were able to forge a civil-society-based opposition second only to Poland’s Solidarity movement.

The Czechs proved their ability for democratic governance and consensus decision-making by first overthrowing the communist regime in a peaceful transfer of power during the “Velvet Revolution” and later in a negotiated dissolution of Czechoslovakia that lead to the creation of the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic.

One has to admire the wisdom of the Czech political elites 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The country has an outstanding record of making a successful transition to a full-fledged democracy and a free market. Unlike some of its neighbors, the Czechs never embraced far-right parties with agendas that could have led to backsliding in market reforms and human rights. Prague has also been very active in promoting democracy and human rights abroad by taking the lead in supporting opposition in Cuba.

Minor challenges that the country may face in the future are connected to the even split of public support for the Civic Democratic Party (ODS) and the Czech Social Democratic Party (CSSD). That creates a situation where weak governments will have difficulty in effectively ruling the country, which in turn may sometimes lead the voters to look for simpler solutions. Corruption is still a problem (as in the other Central European states) in the Czech Republic as demonstrated by the recent scandal involving former prime minister and head of ODS Mirek Topolanek and his secret meeting in Tuscany with a group of businessmen. Minority rights are also a sensitive issue in the Czech Republic. Democracy may suffer if problems with the Roma population and German expellees become a political football.

Learn more about Michael Wyganowski.

Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, America.gov, as part of its feature “The Evolving Work of Democracy,” is asking academics and journalists from the United States and elsewhere to comment on the challenges to democracy that still lay ahead for countries of the former Eastern Bloc. What follows are their responses – and yours are welcome as well.

What is the greatest challenge facing democracy in the Czech Republic?

The Czech Republic has long been considered a success story among post-communist states. With free elections, a relatively high standard of living and a well-educated population, no hard feelings remaining from the “Velvet Divorce” from Slovakia in 1993, and (despite Euroscepticism in some quarters) European Union membership since 2004, the Czechs seem to have weathered the transition to democracy remarkably well. Though recent elections have produced divided parliaments, and the government of Mirek Topolánek fell to a no-confidence vote in the spring, even the current, nonpartisan “caretaker” government enjoys public support.

What, then, is one to make of the mind-numbing series of corruption scandals that has littered the Czech scene since the early 1990s? Preventing official malfeasance, of course, is a challenge to every democracy, but, looking to the area’s pre-communist political traditions, one would have expected the Czech Republic to earn a reputation for integrity in line with those of Austria or Slovenia, also descendants of the pre-1918 Habsburg monarchy.

Nowadays, however, Czech elected officials from prime ministers to small-town mayors, law enforcement officials and civil servants have been investigated for graft and conflict of interest, among other abuses. The most egregious cases stem from rigged competitions for public contracts, which have resulted in huge losses to the Czech taxpayer.

A large number of high-profile cases never come to a conclusion; no one is punished or exonerated. Obviously, a judiciary that bends to political pressures in such cases will only encourage more corruption.

Recently a new scandal erupted in the Czech media, as it emerged that the law faculty at the West Bohemian University in Plzen had granted dozens of degrees under suspicious circumstances, some to politicians and high officials of the judiciary and police. Commentators have raised concerns about the threat to state property and national security when top officials could be blackmailed over their false credentials.

Czech citizens are increasingly cynical over what they see as widespread corruption and improper ties among politicians, business elites and the court system. Indeed, three-quarters of Czechs polled believed that the Plzen law faculty scandal reflected an “organized judicial mafia.” Czech President Václav Klaus in a recent speech called attention to a growing distrust of politicians and state institutions. In a large poll, a majority of Czechs reported having witnessed some form of corruption, and 19 percent admitted to having accepted a bribe. The watchdog group Transparency International ranked the Czech Republic in 45th place among 180 countries in its most recent Corruption Perceptions Index.

Yet there is a positive side to the barrage of attention given to scandals in the Czech Republic. It points to free and vibrant media and unencumbered NGOs. Czech public officials accused of misconduct sometimes compare legitimate investigations to surveillance by the communist-era secret police. But it is the corruption itself that is in part a legacy of Czechoslovakia’s communist years, when theft from the state became a national pastime. A flawed post-communist transition also played its part; the anti-regulatory mood of the 1990s contributed not only to the large-scale swindles following coupon privatization, but also to weak laws against corruption. Finding the political will to strengthen and enforce anti-corruption legislation remains the greatest challenge to an otherwise thriving Czech democracy.

Katherine David-Fox is an independent scholar and consultant in Washington. She taught East European history at the University of Maryland and Ohio State University, and she holds a Ph.D. in history from Yale University.

Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, America.gov, as part of its feature “The Evolving Work of Democracy,” is asking academics and journalists from the United States and elsewhere to comment on the challenges to democracy that still lay ahead for countries of the former Eastern Bloc. What follows are their responses – and yours are welcome as well.

What is the greatest challenge facing democracy in Serbia?

I most recently visited Belgrade just a month ago, in October. I have been to Serbia at least once every year since my first visit, on behalf of the organization I work for, the National Democratic Institute or NDI, in 1995. NDI runs democracy programs that support the development of mainstream political parties, civic groups, fair elections, and parliament. We work with hundreds of people on such activities as setting up members of parliament (MP) constituency offices, getting women and young people elected to public office, building political party capacity to develop reform policies, helping Roma and Serbia’s other minority groups to participate in politics, and enabling civic groups, such as CeSID, Environmental Ambassadors, and the Zajecar Initiative, to inform and organize the public on a wide variety of reform issues affecting society.

Over the course of many years I have seen Serbia change dramatically, even as it has continuously wrestled with the legacy of Slobodan Milosevic. But I have to say that, this year, on this visit, I noticed a perceptible, if intangible, change, one that may mark a turning point in Serbia’s democratic transition. What I noticed was that Milosevic’s legacy of autocracy, exclusion and conflict — and the dominant political debate in response to it — is loosening its grip. People are beginning to turn their attentions toward the future and talking about new issues in new ways, allowing for new possibilities. There is new energy entering Serbia’s politics that is very welcome.

The challenge, then, at this stage, is to position Serbia’s political institutions in ways that not only allow for new issues, new coalitions — new politics, in effect — to come forward, but to promote them with vigor. This means several things. More people should come into the political process, advocating around many different issues, from gender equality to environmental protection to job creation. Parliament needs to become a principal gathering place for these people, which means that MPs need to reach out and work with a variety of issue groups around the country on legislation and monitoring how laws, once passed, are being implemented. And Serbia should examine its election and political party laws, as well as parliament’s resources, to see what might be changed or expanded to encourage more participation, more accountability, and stronger bonds between citizens and the elected officials who represent them.

Serbia’s democratic transition was bottled up by Slobodan Milosevic while he was in power and slowed by his legacy after he left, and Serbia must genuinely examine and understand this legacy so that it can truly move on, move forward. I think it can and it will. The democratic energy that was there all along and that burst forward in 1997 and again rebounded in 2000 is there and taking on new, exciting forms. Based on what I’m seeing in Belgrade and elsewhere around the country, the challenges to democracy are being met, in ways large and small, one day at a time. If anything, the democratic transition will accelerate in the coming few years.

Learn more about Robert Benjamin.

Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, America.gov, as part of its feature “The Evolving Work of Democracy,” is asking academics and journalists from the United States and elsewhere to comment on the challenges to democracy that still lay ahead for countries of the former Eastern Bloc. What follows are their responses – and yours are welcomed as well.

What is the greatest challenge facing democracy in Croatia?

Croatia faces two main challenges during the coming year: managing the impact of the deepening economic recession and ensuring the country’s progress toward European Union entry. The consequences of the financial squeeze and economic recession will be most severely felt by the end of 2009 and early 2010 just as the presidential election campaign in Croatia is in full swing. Croatia is carrying a heavy external debt and budget deficit. Moreover, some analysts calculate a decline of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by over 5 percent in 2009 together with a ballooning budget deficit. Economic growth in 2010 is likely to be minimal. Such projections will necessitate major government budget cuts in the public sector to try and achieve a measure of macro-economic stability.

Democracy is not under threat in Croatia but as in other parts of the region an economic slowdown resulting in growing unemployment, currently standing at 14 percent, and cuts in social spending could lead to street protests, demonstrations, strikes and even greater electoral support for the more extremist and populist presidential candidates. Hence, the presidential elections in January 2010 will be a test both for the statesmanship of the candidates and the political maturity of voters. Croatia’s qualifications for EU membership will also be tested during the course of the elections.

EU accession remains a top priority for Zagreb and the process has recently been reinvigorated after Croatia and Slovenia agreed to settle their maritime border dispute in the Bay of Piran. Croatia has opened six new chapters of the EU’s body of laws and regulations contained in the acquis communautaire and successfully completed five chapters. All 35 chapters need to be completed and implemented in national legislation in order for Croatia to become the 28th EU member. By October 2009, Croatia still had 16 open chapters, and Zagreb will need to intensify its efforts in meeting EU standards in such difficult areas as judicial reform, social policy and environmental protection. In the most optimistic scenario the process is expected to be concluded by mid-2010 with Croatia formally acceding to the Union in 2011.

Learn more about Janusz Bugajski.

Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, America.gov, as part of its feature “The Evolving Work of Democracy,” is asking academics and journalists from the United States and elsewhere to comment on the challenges to democracy that still lay ahead for countries of the former Eastern Bloc. What follows are their responses – and yours are welcomed as well.

What is the greatest challenge facing democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

Structurally, the answer is relatively simple: constitutional reform and a drastic reduction in corruption. But the greatest challenge is attitudinal: how to convince the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) to adapt their political goals to current reality. They have done it before.

I first encountered BiH in the mid-1960s as a recent Yale graduate when I hitchhiked for six weeks throughout the former Socialist Federal Yugoslavia. It was hardly a paradise. The standard of living was considerably lower than today’s, and Tito’s secret police were a ruthless obstacle to genuine democratic expression. Nonetheless, people carved out their own personal spheres, and in BiH they were decidedly multi-ethnic. Serbs and Croats proudly differentiated their Bosnian way of life from that of their cousins in Belgrade or Zagreb. Statistics bore them out: Sarajevo boasted the highest rate of religious intermarriage of any city in Europe.

Fast-forward to 1996. As an OSCE election monitor in the country’s first free election, I paid a courtesy visit to the principal of a large elementary school in Bašcaršija, Sarajevo’s old town, which hosted a polling station. A Bosnian Muslim from Višegrad, he emotionally recalled how Bosnian Serbs had saved his father’s life during World War II. He also told, however, of how Bosnian Serb snipers had shot at his school’s pupils during the just ended siege of Sarajevo. I asked him what accounted for the change in attitude. “Ah,” he replied. “1992 was 1941 plus television.” Demagogic leaders had put personal gain above national interest and morality, utilizing the mass media to foment inter-ethnic hysteria.

Most of those leaders are now dead or on trial for their alleged crimes, but today’s politicians in BiH exhibit similar ultra-nationalist, albeit less violent, tendencies. Why should they alter their attitude?

Bosnian Serbs must realize that their future lies in the European Union, where national borders are increasingly irrelevant and minority rights are protected. Zoran Djindjić, the Bosnian-born former Serbian prime minister, told me a year before he was assassinated: “We Serbs must get over our romantic persecution complex. It is no longer 1389.”

The same holds true for Bosnian Croats. It is 2009. Bosnian Croats must see BiH as the primary element of their European home.

Finally, Bosnian Muslim leaders must understand that politics is the art of the possible, and that means compromise. A reformed, functional federalism is the only feasible structure for BiH. The central government must be strengthened, but the entities, with modified powers, are here to stay.

Learn more about Michael Haltzel.

Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, America.gov, as part of its feature “The Evolving Work of Democracy,” is asking academics and journalists from the United States and elsewhere to comment on the challenges to democracy that still lay ahead for countries of the former Eastern Bloc. What follows are their responses – and yours are welcomed as well.

What is the greatest challenge facing democracy in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

The greatest challenge facing democracy in Bosnia-Herzegovina is that the ideology of ethnic nationalism will ultimately derail the normative development of shared democratic values and principles among its citizens, and promote movement toward a completely unwarranted and short-sighted breakup of the country.

The origins of this problem go back to the 1992–95 war that divided the country into Muslim (Bosniak), Serb and Croat enclaves. These divisions were enshrined in the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement, in particular in Annex 4 of the Agreement, the so-called Dayton Constitution, which provided the three “Constituent Peoples” with legal protection and representation at all levels of government, including an ethnic territorial division of the country into two entities (the Serb Republic and the Bosniak-Croat Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina), each with considerable autonomy under a weak central government. This extraordinary concession to “constituent people” over purely citizen rights was carried out in the interest of peace and stability.

However, the long-term consequence of this arrangement has been a governmental structure that is deeply dysfunctional, expensive, pervasively venal, and thus incapable of providing services to its citizens or fully meeting its international obligations. In the absence of functioning, effective government, [responsibility for] sovereignty, the rule of law, stability and security of Bosnia-Herzegovina has had to remain reluctantly in the hands of the international community mission established by the Dayton Agreement under the authority of the Office of the High Representative. In 2005 the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) determined that the strong ethnically based constitutional arrangement lacked “full democratic legitimacy.”

Despite repeated international and local initiatives to address this democratic deficit in the Dayton Constitution, some political parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina insist on the continuation of the existing democratically challenged constitutional order. Underpinning this perspective is a view that a sovereign, democratic Bosnia-Herzegovina in which citizen rights are paramount represents a profound threat to the security, rights, and aspirations of the Constituent Peoples.

Democracy in Bosnia-Herzegovina thus remains beholden to a supremacist view of ethnicity.

Until there is a broad recognition that democracy has the capacity to protect and enhance equally the individual and collective identities of all citizens, Bosnia-Herzegovina will be an incomplete democracy defined — far more than it need be — by ethnic rather than civic identity.

R. Bruce Hitchner is the chairman of the Dayton Peace Accords Project (the Dayton Project), a nongovernmental organization based at Tufts University, and a professor of classics and international relations there. Hitchner was a member of the original negotiating team that assisted the political parties of Bosnia-Herzegovina in negotiating the 2006 April Package of Constitutional Reforms. Since that time he has remained actively involved in advancing constitutional reform in Bosnia through continued consultation with Bosnian leaders and the international community in Bosnia.