Comparative democratisation researchers need to analyse cautiously the complex intertwining of statebuilding, democratisation and war in each case of political transformation. This paper, published by Democratization, analyses the inter-connection of democratisation, statebuilding and war in Serbia and Croatia and how the international environment influenced these processes. Despite the international tendency to see states from a regional perspective, differences between Serbian and Croatian statebuilding have had major implications for their progress towards democratisation.
Serbia gained independence from the Ottoman Empire in the early 19th century and expanded its territory through a series of wars. Croatia had limited autonomy under the Habsburg monarchy until independence in the early 20th century. Both countries remained agrarian; both shared the Yugoslav federal/confederal system and a socialist economy.
In the post-Yugoslav period, Croatia and Serbia have been involved in statebuilding and wars in their progress towards democracy. These conflicts were the most challenging crises the European Union (EU) has encountered since the end of the Cold War. However, EU debate focused on devising a regional policy and conflict causes; it did not address country-specific characteristics.
The following factors compare and contrast the interplay of democratisation, statebuilding and war in Serbia and Croatia in the 1990s:
- Recent Serbian and Croatian statebuilding has been accompanied by wars in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. The driving force for the wars was the nationalist Serbia’s Miloševic’s authoritarian regime, which mobilised co-nationals in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
- Under Miloševic, Serbian regime change began as a transformation away from democracy and an ‘authoritarian involution’ of the political system. Regime change in Croatia began as a combination of liberalisation due to regime weakness, pressures Serbia and the slow crystallisation of regime opposition in 1989.
- International community interventions in the region were often inadequate, untimely, ineffective and inconsistent. International interventions in the region included mediation, monitoring, arbitration, embargoes, a peacekeeping mission and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
- Serbian democratisation in the 1990’s was prevented by authoritarian renewal of the communist regime through nationalist mobilisation. In Croatia, democratic transition began in 1990 with the rise to power of a populist nationalist party.
The following differences between Serbia and Croatia in the 1990s have had major implications for each country’s democratisation process:
- Serbia’s regime under Miloševic was supported by his disciplined party, a right-wing coalition partner and a repressive apparatus. Croatia had an institutionally stable semi-presidential regime and a parliamentary majority that impeded centralisation of executive power.
- Serbia exhibited a strong right and left extremist potential, while Croatia’s extremist parties were confined to minority status.
- Serbia’s statebuilding programme was characterised by unclear and changing objectives. Croatia began democratic transition with a clear statebuilding goal of becoming an independent state within its constitutionally-guaranteed borders.
