Can non-state entities become democratic? This article from the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Oxford examines the relationship between democratisation and the state. It identifies three dimensions of statehood: recognition, capacity and cohesion. Drawing on the example of Kosovo, two key conclusions emerge: that international recognition of statehood is not a prerequisite for democratisation and that issues of capacity and cohesion pose far greater challenges.
After over six years of UN governance, Kosovo is soon to enter into status negotiations, with independence one possible outcome. Its current status is ambiguous: officially part of the state of Serbia and Montenegro but largely independent of influence from Belgrade and administered by the UN. Political interactions have often been fraught, with international, Kosovo Serb and Kosovo Albanian priorities colliding. Although political development has been marked by uncertainty over future status, this has not precluded significant steps towards democracy. Nevertheless, while continued international involvement may reduce capacity and cohesion problems, progress may not be sustainable once international authorities depart. The real test as to whether the challenges outlined here can be overcome will come if and when Kosovo gains full independence.
Observations on democratic regime-building in Kosovo centre around the three dimensions of recognition, capacity and cohesion:
- Despite its lack of independence and continued fragmentation, Kosovo has undergone a process of democratic development. It has established new institutions of self-rule and seen the democratic election of a domestic assembly and government.
- Limited capacity remains a problem. Lack of skilled staff and resources and impartiality issues affect central government, local administration, the judicial system and the security sector.
- Weaknesses in new institutions may affect Kosovo’s ability to implement policy and enforce rights throughout the territory. Although the international administration has provided capacity, its departure could bring further challenges.
- Irreconcilable differences between Kosovo Serbs and Kosovo Albanians lie at the heart of Kosovo’s lack of cohesion. Kosovo Serbs believe that Kosovo should be a province within Serbia, while Kosovo Albanians argue for independence.
- Low-level violence against Serbs is common and inter-ethnic tensions are high. There are no multi-ethnic political parties and Kosovo Serb parties frequently refuse to engage in political institutions established under international administration.
Consideration of Kosovo’s future has relevance for other state-like entities caught in political limbo:
- Democratic transition can occur outside the state system. But while a lack of international recognition does not preclude democracy, it may indicate other, more significant state-related problems.
- The four criteria regarded as necessary for recognition as a sovereign state – defined borders, a permanent population, effective government and the capacity to enter into international relations – pose difficulties for Kosovo.
- International presence in Kosovo means that prospects for democratisation are inextricably linked with international considerations regarding its status and stability within the wider region.
- One possible solution to Kosovo’s dilemma is ‘conditional independence’. Under this status, Kosovo would control most internal affairs, with international presence limited to the protection of minority rights. Eventual independence would depend on Kosovo’s ability to demonstrate peaceful coexistence within its borders and with neighbouring states.
