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.

Kosovo’s contested sovereignty is clearly hindering its progress toward democratization. The U.N. Security Council’s Resolution 1244 was meant to lay the groundwork for a resolution to the crisis in Kosovo, but it never offered a clear determination of whether Kosovo should remain part of Serbia or become independent. (See http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/MR350Borgen.doc for more information.) When attempts by the international community to lead Kosovo through a conditional and negotiated independence (through the “Standards before Status” process, the Atisaari plan and the attempt at direct negotiations between Kosovar and Serb leaders) ultimately came to naught, Kosovo declared its independence unilaterally in February 2008. But even this declaration has not resolved the issue, given that Serbia still has claims on Kosovo’s sovereignty, and there is a question of whether an international consensus has been reached on Kosovo’s independence — significantly, five of 27 EU member states have not yet recognized Kosovo.

Sovereignty does not typically feature as an indicator of democracy, so why get hung up on status? Why not work on elections, political party reform, anti-corruption and civil society building, which, after all, are the concerns of most democracy-promotion initiatives? Indeed, the international initiatives in the region have been doing just that: addressing the nuts and bolts of building democratic institutions, training police and judges and supporting NGO development. Despite these efforts, however, sovereignty cannot be ignored because the lack of consensus on status has created two distinct legal and institutional systems, each catering to a specific ethnic group, with neither enjoying the legitimacy needed of a true democracy. While some observers have suggested that Kosovo be partitioned along ethnic lines, it would be morally indefensible in a modern Europe, and would set a destabilizing precedent on the continent.

At the same time, endlessly debating Kosovo’s status has left the people of Kosovo and Serbia in stasis. Rather than making progress on economic and political reform, politicians there are mired in symbolic politics, in which contested historical visions of the nation and narratives of national victimization trump the state’s responsibility to meet the needs of its citizens and protect the rights of its people.

Thus, it is difficult to build a democracy without the foundation of sovereignty and legitimacy, but endlessly debating the sovereignty issue has distracted both governments from their responsibilities to their people. How can we get out of Kosovo’s Catch-22? The consensus between the United States and the European Union seems to be that Kosovo’s democracy-building efforts should be tethered to European norms on democracy and minority rights, as defined by the Council of Europe and the European Union. At the same time, it is hoped that the promise of European Union membership will be a driver for political and economic reform, in both Serbia and Kosovo, so that politicians redirect their focus on meeting the needs of their constituents. This will be incredibly challenging for the European Union, but with the strong support of its trans-Atlantic partner — the United States — it is the best hope for bringing democracy, peace and prosperity to the Western Balkans.

Learn more about Nida Gelazis.