Introduction: (De)democratisation in Slovenia and Montenegro: Comparing the Quality of Democracy

Q2 Social Sciences Politics in Central Europe Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.2478/PCE-2020-0026
O. Komar, Meta Novak
{"title":"Introduction: (De)democratisation in Slovenia and Montenegro: Comparing the Quality of Democracy","authors":"O. Komar, Meta Novak","doi":"10.2478/PCE-2020-0026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper creates a framework for the comparison of two similar and yet different democratisation cases – Slovenia and Montenegro. The two countries have obvious similarities: their geography and small population, as well as their common socialist Yugoslav heritage and common aspirations to join international organisations, most importantly the European Union. However, while Slovenia went through the democratisation process rather smoothly, Montenegro took the longer road, struggling for more than a decade to regain its independence and complete its transition. We take into account different internal and external factors in these two cases such as the year of independence and of joining NATO, the political and electoral system, ethnic homogeneity, the viability of civil society, EU integration status, economic development and the presence of war in each territory in order to identify and describe those factors that contributed to the success of democratisation in different areas: the party system, the interest groups system, the defence system, Europeanisation and social policy. We find that the democratisation process in these countries produced different results in terms of quality. Various objective measures of the quality of democracy score Slovenia higher compared to Montenegro, while public opinion data shows, in general, greater satisfaction with the political system and greater trust in political institutions in Montenegro than in Slovenia.","PeriodicalId":37403,"journal":{"name":"Politics in Central Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics in Central Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/PCE-2020-0026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This paper creates a framework for the comparison of two similar and yet different democratisation cases – Slovenia and Montenegro. The two countries have obvious similarities: their geography and small population, as well as their common socialist Yugoslav heritage and common aspirations to join international organisations, most importantly the European Union. However, while Slovenia went through the democratisation process rather smoothly, Montenegro took the longer road, struggling for more than a decade to regain its independence and complete its transition. We take into account different internal and external factors in these two cases such as the year of independence and of joining NATO, the political and electoral system, ethnic homogeneity, the viability of civil society, EU integration status, economic development and the presence of war in each territory in order to identify and describe those factors that contributed to the success of democratisation in different areas: the party system, the interest groups system, the defence system, Europeanisation and social policy. We find that the democratisation process in these countries produced different results in terms of quality. Various objective measures of the quality of democracy score Slovenia higher compared to Montenegro, while public opinion data shows, in general, greater satisfaction with the political system and greater trust in political institutions in Montenegro than in Slovenia.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
引言:斯洛文尼亚和黑山的民主化:民主质量的比较
本文创建了一个框架,用于比较两个相似但不同的民主化案例——斯洛文尼亚和黑山。这两个国家有明显的相似之处:他们的地理位置和人口稀少,以及他们共同的社会主义南斯拉夫传统和加入国际组织的共同愿望,最重要的是欧盟。然而,虽然斯洛文尼亚相当顺利地完成了民主化进程,但黑山却走了一条较长的道路,为恢复独立和完成过渡而奋斗了十多年。在这两种情况下,我们考虑了不同的内部和外部因素,如独立和加入北约的年份,政治和选举制度,种族同质性,公民社会的可行性,欧盟一体化状况,经济发展和每个领土的战争存在,以确定和描述那些促成不同领域民主化成功的因素:政党制度、利益集团制度、国防制度、欧洲化和社会政策。我们发现,这些国家的民主化进程在质量方面产生了不同的结果。在民主质量的各种客观指标中,斯洛文尼亚得分高于黑山,而民意数据显示,总体而言,黑山对政治制度的满意度和对政治机构的信任度都高于斯洛文尼亚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Politics in Central Europe
Politics in Central Europe Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: POLITICS IN CENTRAL EUROPE – The Journal of the Central European Political Science Association is an independent and internationally peer-reviewed scientific journal in political science and international relations. The Journal was established in 2005 as the scientific review that publishes scientific essays, book reviews and information about conferences and other events connected with Central European issues. POLITICS IN CENTRAL EUROPE publishes politics, policy analysis, international relations and other sub-disciplines of political original, peer-reviewed manuscripts that provide scientific essays focusing on issues in comparative science, as well as original theoretical or conceptual analyses. All essays must contribute to a broad understanding of the region of Central Europe. Our goal is to give scholars from Central Europe and beyond the opportunity to present the results of their research.
期刊最新文献
Opportunities and Limits of Presidential Activism: Czech presidents compared Equality implies proportionality: Assessing the (dis)proportionality of constituencies created for the 2022 Slovak regional elections The Impact of Electoral Gender Quotas on Women’s Political Participation in Bosnia and Herzegovina Cabinet formation under semi-presidentialism: European countries in comparison IlliberalNeo-Intergovernmentalism: Poland’s Conservative Idea for the European Union?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1