I. INTRODUCTION
On December 5, 1997 most daily newspapers in Slovakia reported on a statement made by the deputy of the European Parliament (EP), A. Oostlander. Among other things, Mr. Oostlander made the following comment regarding Slovakia's dismal accession status to the European Union (EU): "You either have to change your opinion, or change the government."(1)The Office of the Slovak Premier responded promptly. According to Vladimir Meciar the statement constituted an unprecedented interference in the internal affairs of Slovakia, and the behavior of Mr. Oostlander is unprofessional, irresponsible and unfit of a member of the EP. Moreover, the call for the dismissal of a democratically elected government of a sovereign state is against all accepted international norms, and the entire affair is another example of bias and double standard applied against Slovakia. In addition, the Vice Premier, M. A. Huska was quick to point out that Slovakia is treated as a second class state for it refused to become the vassal of rich and powerful Western countries whose only desire is to deplete Slovakia's natural resources and wealth. A promise of vigilance and continuous protection of Slovak national interest concluded Mr. Huska's emotional statement.(2)
Since politicians as well as scholars frequently complain about ambiguities, inconsistencies and double standards in EU policies toward new applicants,(3) the exchange of opinions summarized above should raise several questions. First, are the methods used by the EU to evaluate the accession status of new applicants problematic? If so, how can the evaluation process be improved? Second, to what extent, if at all, would a change in government diminish Slovakia's democratic deficit? After all, Vladimir Meciar and his Movement for Democratic Slovakia (HZDS) are the legitimate winner of two, free and fair elections. The suggestion for his removal from office made by a member of the EP can hardly be acceptable by international standards. Moreover, the suggested correlation between government change and more democracy in Slovakia is unfounded and speculative.(4) Third, would rapid and fundamental changes in the criticized areas of Slovak domestic politics be meaningful? Are such changes socially and politically sustainable?(5) It seems likely that under the present conditions concessions to the Hungarian minority would increase popular support of the Slovak National Party (SNS). In addition, the opposition parties are still too fragmented to provide a viable alternative for Meciar's coalition.(6) Finally, Mr. Huska's comments suggest that the statement made by Mr. Oostlander had an adverse effect and may have strengthened popular support for the Meciar government. In short, it seems reasonable to point out that there might be fundamental flaws 1) in the EU's approach to evaluation, and 2) in its accession strategy toward the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).
The main objective of this essay is to propose different and more viable alternatives in both areas. Since a complete and comprehensive analysis of the EU's approach to evaluation would go beyond the scope of this paper, I will focus on the Czech Republic and Slovakia, more specifically on their approximation policies--and the evaluation of these--aimed at citizenship. A systematic comparison of the two countries is useful, because they share a common history of 40 years of communism, shared the same state from 1918-1993, and their chances for membership, at least until the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993, were essentially equal. Today, however, the Czech Republic is IN, while Slovakia seems to be definitely OUT of the first round of accession talks.(7) A systematic comparison of the post-1993 developments in the two countries, therefore, might reveal whether changes in their accession status result from ineffectual evaluation, misguided accession strategies at the EU level, or whether they appropriately reflect changes in domestic political and economic trends.
It also seems profitable to focus on the area of citizenship. First, there is an explicit theoretical link between the concepts of citizenship, nationhood and democracy. The link between citizenship and nationhood is relevant, because it reflects the degree to which a state might be willing (and able) to trade sovereignty for the sake of integration.(8) The link between citizenship and democracy, on the other hand, reveals the degree of democratic deficit in a state's observation of human and minority rights, in the nature of consultations between the state agents and citizens, and in the extent to which citizens are protected from arbitrary action.(9) Second, a systematic analysis of citizenship politics on the domestic level provides vital information for an accurate evaluation of accession candidates at the EU level, and for the consequent development of feasible accession strategies toward candidates. Both evaluation and accession strategies are important, because the former provides useful hints regarding the popular attitudes toward foreigners in societies that were for several decades "protected" from their influence, while the latter diminishes the likelihood of policies that could have undesired outcomes. Finally, while Article 8 of the Treaty of European Union(10) revived the academic debate on changing the understanding of citizenship in contemporary Western democracies, a surprisingly insignificant part of this debate focuses on post-communist countries.(11) This is a disturbing trend, mainly because Western paradigms do not always fit and often produce unintended and undesired consequences when applied in the countries of CEE.
Following a review of most influential arguments in contemporary literature on
citizenship,
I
define the relevant concepts, and outline a theoretical framework in which relations
between
nationhood, citizenship, democracy and integration could be analyzed. Then, with a
specific
focus
on citizenship, I compare evaluations of the Czech Republic and Slovakia made in
"Agenda
2000," point out inconsistencies, and suggest alternatives for evaluation and accession
strategies.
I will argue that inconsistencies and bias in evaluation are in part the results of
methodological
inadequacies, namely 1) the absence of comprehensive definitions and analytical
frameworks,
and
2) the consequent ignorance (at the EU level) toward the specific domestic political and
societal
constraints. In part, however, bias can be traced directly to the lack of desire of EU
leaders
to
sit
down and negotiate with political figures of dubious reputation like Vladimir
Meciar.(12) I
conclude that the EU strategies of Eastward enlargement hinge on a paradox that
demands
the
most substantive changes from countries that are institutionally the least stable. Such
changes
are
politically not sustainable, and therefore a gradualist and incremental strategy of change
is
likely
to be more feasible.
II. CITIZENSHIP, NATIONHOOD, DEMOCRACY AND EUROPEAN
INTEGRATION: CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
One segment of the scholarly literature on citizenship makes an attempt to disentangle the complex set of relationships between the EU member--and non-member--states, their citizens and the Union.(13) These arguments fit into one of the following three categories where conceptions of citizenship are understood: 1) as rights and obligations that establish an individual's membership of a nation-state; 2) as a membership in any space outside of the nation-state where individual and collective rights can be legitimated; or 3) as rights and obligations that place the individual somewhere between the alternatives 1 and 2.
The second segment of scholarship tries to explain the relationship between
citizenship
and
democracy. Two distinct approaches can be identified in this literature. According to
the
first,
the
extension of equal political, civil, and social rights to citizens leads gradually to the
destruction
of
the old status-based hierarchies, and to democracy.(14) The second approach disputes
the
progressive, linear, and evolutionary character of citizenship rights. It argues that the
democratic component of citizenship is 1) the result of an ongoing bargaining process
that
started
between the ruling elites of 18th and 19th century European states (more specifically
France)
and
their subjects, and 2) the consequence of a successful emulation of the Western model
by
the
subsequently established nation-states.(15)
Below,
I
shall
review these arguments and then propose a composite framework for a relational
definition
of
citizenship that incorporates nationhood and democracy. Finally, I develop a model that
helps
to
evaluate the degree of democracy in selected cases.
CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONHOOD
Scholars who understand citizenship as a membership of a nation state, view efforts leading toward European integration with skepticism.(16) According to Raymond Aron, European citizenship is logically impossible because it would have to involve the transfer of political and legal powers from the national level. For such a transfer to take place, a sustained popular demand for a European Federation would have to be present.(17) Rogers Brubaker argues that citizenship is likely to remain a bastion of national sovereignty because its definitions continue to reflect a deeply rooted understanding of nationhood.(18) Both arguments are, with some qualifications, supported by Charles Tilly, who claims that citizenship is one of the underlying organizational features of modern nation-states. It is therefore unlikely to shed its close relationship to nationhood because the construction of new organizational relations entails substantial transaction costs for their implementation, maintenance and learning.(19)
The second category of scholars dismisses the idea of citizenship as merely a membership of a nation-state. Yasemin Soysal and David Jacobson point to the changing conventional characterization of citizenship, as a form of belonging to a nation-state, arguing that international migration, supra-national associations and the nearly universal acceptance of basic human rights constitute an alternative space for legitimation of individual and collective rights outside the membership of a nation-state. The citizenship of the Union--a formal extension of rights to free movement of goods, services, capital and people--from their point of view cannot be considered a major obstacle to European integration.(20)
The third strand of explanations tends to agree that the contemporary conception of citizenship in Europe inched away from the conventional, national understanding in the Union's direction. Yet, by no means are views expressed by the authors who fall into this category as optimistic as those of Soysal and Jacobson. Some cautious observers even point to rising fortunes of European nationalist parties at the ballot box and suggest that a significant portion of individuals want neither to give up their right to the national membership, nor to share their well deserved benefits with foreigners.(21) Hence, integrative pressures from the EU, some argue, actually contributed to the racialization of citizenship policies, and they threaten even the well established inclusive and non-ethnic principles of national citizenship laws.(22) This view is corroborated by empirical evidence that points to a correlation between cycles of economic decline in the member states, with instances of rising resentment toward foreigners, and a declining support for European integration.(23)
In addition, Baldwin-Edwards, Baubock and Meehan argue that the Citizenship of
the
Union
has had little impact on the legalization of migrant and guest workers of non-member
states;
and it
continues to limit the movement of unemployed and young people.(24) Furthermore, they argue that it is slow
to
provide
the
anticipated stimulus for the much desired harmonization of voting and naturalization
laws
in
the
respective member states.(25) Therefore,
the
Citizenship of
the Union in its present form is merely a
procedural window-dressing, rather than a substantive and enforceable law.(26)At the same time,
according to Meehan, the emerging new kind of citizenship is neither national, nor
cosmopolitan,
but multiple in a sense that "identities, rights and obligations associated with citizenship
are
expressed through an increasingly complex configuration of common Community
institutions,
states, national and trans-national voluntary associations, regions and alliances of
regions."(27) The
growing acceptance of this new kind of citizenship is reflected in the relaxation of
naturalization
laws in traditionally strict countries like Germany,(28)
and
in a growing acceptance of dual
citizenship by Western European countries.(29)
CITIZENSHIP AND DEMOCRACY
Investigating the emergence of civic, political and social rights in England, T.H. Marshall traced the formative period of civil rights in the 18th century, namely the protection of an individual's freedom and property from the state which led to the political rights of the 19th century. These enabled citizens to participate in the political process through elections. Finally, the social rights of a welfare state provided entitlements to social security. According to Marshall, "[C]itizenship is a status bestowed by those who are full members of a community. All who possess the status are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the status is endowed."(30) Thus citizenship, in Marshall's view is linked to democracy in a sense that equality in the application of rights and duties helped destroy the strict, status-based class hierarchy of mediaeval England, and provided the impetus to challenge the inequalities of 20th century capitalism.
Marshall's theory is criticized on several grounds. First, it is argued that the evolution of citizenship rights in England has taken place in relative isolation from external influences and in a culturally homogeneous society. This model, therefore, should be used with reservation when applied to the continental European states that were exposed directly to external threats, or to states that incorporated culturally and otherwise diverse peoples. Second, the teleological model according to which citizenship rights progressed from political, through civic, to social, assumes the culmination of this process in a full welfare state. Today, however, the entitlements provided by welfare states are under constant pressure from increasing global competition. One can only speculate to what extent social rights will survive in their present form. Third, citizenship rights in the former communist states of CEE (and elsewhere) seem to take a reverse evolutionary course that started with social rights inherent in the socialist economic systems, progressed through civil rights via the increasing challenge to authoritarian regimes from dissidents in the 1970s and 80s, and culminated in the acquisition of political rights after the 1989 revolutions.(31) Finally, the relatively new states--for instance states that became independent in the aftermath of the Soviet empire(32)--have neither the time, nor the necessity to go through a similar evolutionary process. They can simply emulate the Western model, and make adjustments that best fit their present demographic, cultural, social and economic conditions.
An alternative to Marshall's explanation was proposed by Charles Tilly. According
to
Tilly,
the origins of modern citizenship could be traced to the 1792 French Constitution that
granted
voting rights to wage-earning males who took the oath to defend the nation and
Constitution.
In
Tilly's interpretation, it was the expanding military activity of the revolutionary state that
increased the need for conscription and revenue, and forced state agents to strike
bargains
with
the reluctant subjects. Thus, citizenship, as defined by Tilly is a "tie entailing mutual
rights
and
obligations between categorically defined persons and the state." It was established
through
a
bargaining process between the state and its subjects. The increasing demands of the
state
and
the
subsequent inclusion of continuously widening segments of population in the bargaining
process
made democracy possible where it had not previously existed. This does not mean that
all
new
states follow the same paradigm, or that bargaining resulted in the establishment of a
welfare
state. On one hand, the availability of the Western model makes emulation not
only possible but relatively easy. Yet, as far as the contemporary status of
citizenship rights is concerned, they seem to hinge on the extent to which globalization
undermines the capacity of states to fulfill their commitments.(33) The increasing momentum of
European integration, for instance, might weaken the bond between the nation-state and
the
citizens, if it can offer a viable and credible alternative for an expansion of individual
and
collective rights vis-a-vis the benefits provided by nation-states.
CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS: TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In an effort to compromise between conventional and post-modern conceptions of citizenship, Baldwin-Edwards, Baubock, Heater and Meehan rely on the following definition: "Citizenship is a bundle of rights and obligations--both formal and informal--which link an individual with society."(34) Although the substitution of a "society" for the "nation-state" in this definition creates opportunities for unconventional conceptualizations of the "link" between citizenship and individuals, the definition fails to explain how and by whom the rights and obligations in question are guaranteed. The rights anchored in the Citizenship of the Union, for example, are conferred on every person holding the nationality of a member state, and are guaranteed by the agents of participating states rather than through EU enforcement mechanisms.(35)
More importantly, such a conceptualization of citizenship does not help to establish
a
relationship
between citizenship, nationhood and democracy, mainly because it 1) does not
incorporate
the
common components of these concepts, and 2) it takes merely a substantive, or
procedural approach rather than a relational one.(36)
Building on the work of Charles Tilly, I
propose to begin with the following concepts:(37)
State: an organization that controls the means of coercion within a defined territory and exercises a priority in some respects over all other organizations within the same territory.(38)
Polity: the set of relations among the agents of the state and all major political actors within the delimited territory.
Rights: enforceable claims, the reciprocal of obligations.
Citizenship: consists of rights and mutual obligations binding the state agents and a category of persons defined by their legal attachment to the state.
Along these lines:
I) Nationhood and citizenship are linked to an extent that a state establishes a category of persons (based on criteria of descent, culture, birth, language, race, naturalization rules, and their combination) who by virtue of membership in this category acquire distinctive rights and obligations vis-a-vis the state.(39) Citizenship then is considered broad by the degree to which it extends membership to persons living within the state's bounded territory, and is considered equal to the extent to which the distinctive rights and mutual obligations apply to these persons.
II) Depending upon the criteria used to establish ties between the state and the people living within its territory (culture, language, race, ethnicity, birth, naturalization, etc...), citizenship might vary along two dimensions from a) exclusive to inclusive, and b) primordial to learned.(40) Then the primordial and exclusive variety of citizenship could be egalitarian, yet by no means broad, the primordial and inclusive could be broad but by no means egalitarian, learned and exclusive citizenship could be considered as moderately broad and egalitarian, while the learned inclusive variety is likely to be the broadest and most egalitarian of the four ideal types (see Figure I).(41) Naturally, conceptions of citizenship in most states are going to fall somewhere along the boundaries of the ideal types proposed in Figure I below, which should be used only as an analytical device.
FIGURE I.
EXCLUSIVE
INCLUSIVE
PRIMORDIAL
Folk or Ethnic Model: expression of an ethnically homogeneous society where citizenship is acquired by descent (Israel) I.
Imperial Model: facilitates integration of different people under the
domination of
one national
group (the Ottoman or British Empire) II.
LEARNED
Republican Model: Citizenship is acquired by birthplace, and naturalization by cultural assimilation (France) III.
Multicultural Model:
Citizenship by birth, and naturalization through adherence to norms and rules (US)
IV.
III) Any polity should be considered democratic to a degree that it establishes: (1) broad and equal citizenship
(2) binding and transparent consultation of citizens with respect to governmental personnel and policies
(3) protection of citizens from arbitrary action of state agents
IV) Finally, we might want to think of states as falling somewhere along four
continua
on
a
scale
form 0 to 1, where:
a) citizenship can be narrow (0) to broad (1)
b) unequal (0) to equal (1)
c) consultation with citizens: no (0) to extensive (1)
d) protection from arbitrary action: no (0) to extensive (1)
A state then is a complete democracy when rated (1111), while a state rated (0000)
is
a
complete tyranny. A state with (1100) is a populist dictatorship, and so on. For a better
orientation,
contemporary Western democracies are likely to be rated somewhere in the
neighborhood
of
(.80,
.90, .75, .85).(42)
III. CITIZENSHIP IN THE WEST AND THE EAST
As I have mentioned above, there are fundamental differences between contemporary Western and CEE states, of which scholars and practitioners should be aware when setting the standards and criteria for accession to the EU. First, Western states (here the member states of the EU) vis-a-vis the CEE countries are relatively old, have stable institutions--(in the sense that the rules of the game are well defined, anchored in constitutions, and are generally respected). (43) Their conceptions of citizenship have evolved gradually in response to existing historical constraints, and they reflect a deeply rooted understanding of nationhood.(44) Second, the capacity of these states is usually high in a sense that they are able to 1) design and implement strategies that structure inter and intra-state relations,(45) 2) extract revenue, and 3) maintain low levels of violent crime.(46) Consequently, Western states appear well positioned to make changes in citizenship laws that are gradual on one hand, and politically and socially sustainable on the other. Finally, the politics of citizenship in the EU states are to a large extent governed by the generally accepted trend toward convergence (or harmonization). Therefore, one might encounter political opposition toward further relaxation of citizenship laws in the UK and France, where these laws are relatively inclusive and are extended, with some qualifications, to legal immigrants who demonstrate an anticipated degree of cultural adaptation.(47) On the other hand in Germany, where until recently citizenship was relatively exclusive and derived from the principle of descent (primordial), political opposition toward a relaxation of these laws appears less salient.(48)
Unlike their Western neighbors, the states of CEE are relatively new and have only rarely attained sustainable levels of institutional stability. Additionally, their conceptions of citizenship were, or in many instances, are being emulated and made--with varying degrees of success--to fit the contemporary demographic, political, cultural, social and international settings. Citizenship in CEE states is therefore seldom rooted in a fully developed understanding of nationhood. Slovakia, for instance is currently engaged in the process of state and nation-building, and hence its politics of citizenship often lack coherence and the individual policies contradict one another(49) Moreover, the capacity of CEE states is usually low in a sense that they are rarely able to 1) design and implement strategies that structure inter and intra-state relations,(50) 2) extract revenue, and 3) maintain low levels of violent crime.(51)
In short, the comparison of CEE states with the West reveals a paradox. The old,
well
established
and institutionally stable Western European states are expected to make only gradual
and
incremental changes in their citizenship policies, while the new, often nationalizing,
poorly
established, and institutionally unstable states of CEE are required to make changes that
are
rapid and fundamental. Such strategies could be counterproductive, mainly because
they
are
likely
to hamper--rather than advance--institutional stabilization. Even if formally accepted
by
CEE
countries, these strategies are unlikely to facilitate
conditions for meaningful and politically sustainable changes. Therefore, if the aim of
EU
accession strategies is to develop stable institutions that guarantee democracy, the rule
of
law
and
the protection of human and minority rights, West European standards should only
serve
as
a
point of orientation rather than applied across the board as unconditionally attainable
criteria.
IV. CITIZENSHIP IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND SLOVAKIA
The evaluation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia Agenda 2000, makes a clear distinction in their accession status. The Czech Republic, according to the report, has stable and properly functioning political institutions, free and fair elections, an opposition that plays an active role in the operation of institutions, and therefore "presents the characteristics of a democracy, with stable institutions guaranteeing the rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities."(52) At the same time, the report admits that the judiciary does not operate properly, and that the Czech citizenship law discriminates against the Roma.(53)
The evaluation report on Slovakia identifies a number of problematic areas, that failed to fulfill the political criteria for EU accession. In the commission's view, the institutional framework defined in the Slovak Constitution corresponds to that of a parliamentary democracy, yet the degree of institutional stability is unsatisfactory.(54) In addition, the report expresses concerns about the independence of the judiciary, the government's use of the secret service, and the treatment of the Hungarian and Roma minorities. According to Agenda 2000, the elections held in Slovakia were free and fair, and there is no mention of citizenship law.
I will argue below that the reports are correct as far as the degree of institutional stability in the two countries is concerned. However, the report on the Czech Republic could have been more critical regarding the treatment of the Roma. In this case, changes in the Czech Citizenship Law are necessary and would be politically sustainable in the sense that they are unlikely to cause institutional instability. In case of Slovakia, changes made in the areas of citizenship and protection of minorities already reached a politically sustainable limit, and more profound changes could increase rather than decrease institutional instability. Continued changes in this area could have an adverse effect on the process of democratization.
A comparison of the Czech Republic and Slovakia reveals several differences that
are
relevant for
the understanding of nationhood, the nature of citizenship and institutional stability in
the
two
countries. First, the Czech state is relatively old and institutionally stable in a sense that
the
rules
of the game are well defined and respected by most political actors. While the Slovak
state
is
in
a transitional phase, and the main political and societal actors are in a power struggle
over
institutional arrangement. Second, following arguments made by Brubaker and Tilly,
nationhood
in the Czech
Republic has developed in response to state-seeking nationalism, while in Slovakia this
development has a state-led character.(55)
Finally,
in
accordance with state-seeking nationalism, the
Czechs have developed a deeply rooted ethnic understanding of nationhood and a
moderately
ethno-centric conception of citizenship, while in Slovakia both the evolution of
nationhood
and
citizenship are still in progress. Therefore, the understanding of nationhood and the
conception
of
citizenship in Slovakia are going to be shaped through the bargaining process between
domestic political actors and external third parties (the EU). Whether the Slovak
conception
of
citizenship will acquire an exclusionary/ethnic, or inclusionary/civic character will
depend
upon the outcome of this bargaining process in which the EU is likely to play an
important
role.
THE CZECH REPUBLIC
The Czech state is relatively old and the definition of Czech nationhood is well established. Historically, the tradition of Czech statehood goes back to the Czech Kingdom (Zeme Koruny Ceske). Its institutional foundations can be traced to inter-war Czechoslovakia and to the Czechoslovak Federation.(56) he rules of the game between the major political actors--the executive, legislative, judiciary and societal--are well defined, anchored in the Czech Constitution, and respected by the involved parties. In comparison the state capacity concerning the collection of revenue and control of crime and corruption is low.(57)
The contemporary understanding of Czech nationhood evolved slowly in response to the continuous presence of its strong, and more often than not, assertive neighbor--Germany. Like most CEE nations which sought some degree of autonomy in the European empires of 19th century, the Czech national revival had a state-seeking character. Czech nationhood is folk-centered, defined vis-a-vis the Germans who are seen as the "arch villains of Czech history." The primary source that set the direction for the evolution of Czech nationhood (aside from the physical presence of Germans) was F. Palacky's interpretation of Czech history. Palacky portrayed the Husites as one of the ancestral national liberators of the Czechs from German oppression. He argued that the treachery of German nobility at the infamous Battle of Bila Hora is to be blamed for the Period of Darkness (Temno) in the Czech Lands.(58) Anti German sentiment gained momentum and endurance via the popular literary works of writers like Alois Jirasek,(59) and was exacerbated during the Great War, reaching its peak during the Protectorate, and the subsequent expulsion of the Sudeten Germans in 1945.(60)
While the understanding of Czech nationhood was ethno-centric, the citizenship and language laws of the new multi-ethnic state were relatively inclusive.(61) This transformation of the ethno-centric conception of citizenship was, to some extent, shaped by the desire of Czech politicians to maintain the liberal democratic image of the republic established by T.G. Masaryk. According to Czech thinker, F. Peroutka, during the discussion of the Language Law in 1921, the deputies argued that it would be smarter to exceed the minimal requirements for protection of minorities stipulated by the Treaty of St. Germain. Such a strategy would protect the Czech liberal-democratic image in the event complaints were launched by the well organized German and Hungarian minorities.(62)
However, several episodes from contemporary Czech history support the argument that the ethno-centric understanding of nationhood endures. First, there was no comprehensive strategy of assimilation or inclusion directed toward the German and Hungarian minorities living in the interwar republic. On the contrary, ethnic claims in regions with high a concentration of Germans were routinely suppressed by force. The Great Depression of the early 1930s further escalated repression.(63) Second, the assumption of collective guilt, and the consequent expulsion of the Sudeten Germans from the Czech lands in 1945 is well documented. Close to 3 million ethnic Germans were expelled, some 600,000 died in the process. Those Germans and Hungarians who remained in Czechoslovakia had no citizenship rights until 1952. More recently, domestic and international human rights organizations and NGOs note the ongoing discrimination of the Roma minority, racially motivated attacks on Asians and Africans living in the Czech Republic, and the subsequent pattern of government inaction against these trends, as well as the continuous maintenance of a discriminatory and exclusionary citizenship law.
Although problems with the Roma are by no means unique to the Czech Republic, it is disturbing that racially motivated attacks are on the rise. Human rights organizations attribute this trend to the lenient treatment of perpetrators. According to the International Helsinki Federation (IHF) 1997 Annual Report on the Czech Republic, there were 62 attacks on the Roma in 194, 90 in 1995, 157 in 1996, and as of November 1997 the number climbed to 233.(64) Between 1990 and 1996, 17 Roma were killed in such attacks, and several hundreds more were injured. Yet, of the more than 200 persons accused of these acts, less then 100 were convicted.(65) A recent killing of a Sudanese student in Prague attracted attention to the problem of racial intolerance in Czech Republic. In response, a number of politicians, including President Havel, took part in a public demonstration against racism and xenophobia.(66)
Another episode of ethnic exclusionarism was inspired by a program aired on the Czech TV Nova. The program which depicted Gypsy immigrants living a relatively prosperous life in Canada, instigated a massive exodus of Roma from the Czech Republic. Some Czech politicians suggested that the documentary was the best thing the TV station had done thus far, and the program should be aired more often. The Mayor of Ostrava, Jana Lickova, even made a public offer that the city will pay $600 toward the air ticket of every Roma who decides to leave the country.(67)
In response to an increasing criticism from the UNHCR, OSCE and the EU, the Czech authorities began to deal with the problem in 1995. In 1996, the Parliament passed a resolution denouncing racism and xenophobia in the Czech Republic, and created 120 new positions for specialists to fight against racism and extremism.(68) Yet, there were no significant improvements in the work of the judiciary; Cases of racially motivated acts were often characterized as "personal fights," and the sentences passed were light, sending a message that such crimes were not considered serious.(69) For instance, a restaurant owner in Rokycany was accused of banning Roma from the premises. He was charged with discrimination, but the case was dropped for lack of evidence. "In general," according to Mrs. Laubeova, the director of Nadace Nova Skola, "there is bias in the treatment of Roma in every sphere of life in the Czech Republic, from the top government officials all the way down to the owner of the village pub."(70)
The 1993 Citizenship Law supports the ethno-centric and exclusionary nature of Czech citizenship, and is often criticized by international organizations including the UNHCR, OSCE and the Council of Europe.(71) The law which came into effect on January 1, 1993, excluded all Slovaks who had their permanent residence in the Czech Republic from Czech citizenship. The law resulted in a number of stateless people, and is being used to discriminate against the Roma minority.(72) Article 18 of the law gives Slovak citizens the opportunity to apply for Czech citizenship under the conditions that the applicant reside in the Czech Republic for at least two years, has a certificate of exemption from Slovak citizenship, and has no criminal record within the last five years. Thus, people who were exempt from Slovak citizenship and failed to meet the requirements for Czech citizenship became stateless. Moreover, even individuals who were arrested, but not persecuted, were automatically disqualified from Czech citizenship.(73) On April 1996, the law was amended so the Ministry of Interior could waive the five-year clean record requirement in selected cases. Yet, according to the Tolerance Foundation, Roma were often given no information or misleading guidance regarding citizenship issues. Out of the 255 Roma surveyed who were not granted Czech citizenship, 80% were long-term residents, 50% had a clean criminal record, and only 19 had been convicted of serious crimes and 26 of petty offenses.(74)
In short, the endurance of ethno-centric and exclusionary understanding of Czech
nationhood
stems from the violent episodes of Czech-German relations in the interwar and
post-WWII periods, and by the ongoing discrimination of the sole remaining minority,
the
Roma
which does not fit into the Czech conception of citizenship.(75) Consequently, Roma applications for
citizenship
are
refused, their rate of unemployment remains at
60-70% (compared to 3-4% overall), they are applauded and offered money if they
decide
to
leave the country, the courts do not take seriously cases of racially motivated attacks
against
them, and they continue to be the favorite targets of Czech skinheads. However, at the
same
time,
there were always liberally minded, moral and ethical figures in Czech politics, such as
Masaryk,
Benes, and Havel, who were able to influence and moderate the exclusionary
conception of Czech citizenship. This could be President Havel's challenge for 1998,
the
year
when
accession talks with the EU will have to be taken seriously.(76) Given the liberal democratic
tradition of Czech statehood, the relative institutional stability and the general desire of
Czechs
to
join the West, moderation of citizenship policies is the most viable option at this time.
SLOVAKIA
Compared to the Czech Republic, Slovakia is a new and institutionally unstable state with an ethnically heterogeneous population, engaged in state and nation-building.(77) Activities aimed at the construction of Slovak nationhood are state-led.(78) Yet, the process of nation-building--the ongoing struggle between the various conceptions of Slovak nationhood presented by a range of individuals and organizations is more complex than it used to be in the days of F. Palacky. Not surprisingly, the conception of Slovak nationhood is ambiguous, and the understanding of citizenship is superficial at best. Even though some academics point as far back as the Kingdom of Great Moravia, or the 1939 Slovak State for the origins of Slovakia, the Slovak state is still being built from the ruins of the former federation. It is relatively weak in its capacity to extract revenue, prevent crime, and structure internal relations.(79) Both state and nation building activities create favorable conditions for institutional instability, reflected in a lack of coherence, abrupt changes, and controversial decisions in domestic and foreign politics.
Since efforts to construct and authenticate a credible conception of Slovak nationhood are multiple and represent a range of interests, they are often contested. Therefore, both the conception of nationhood, and the understanding of Slovak citizenship are full of ambiguities. In Spring of 1996, for instance, Milan Durica, a history professor at the University of Bologna, published a controversial book financed by PHARE. Durica's book, Dejiny slovenska a slovakov (The History of Slovakia and the Slovak People), which was intended to serve as a supplementary high school history textbook, depicted the 1939 Slovak Republic as liberal, and the treatment of Jews during the war as lenient. After criticisms from the Slovak Academy of Sciences, teachers associations, Jewish organizations and the EU, Premier Meciar was forced to make a public announcement regarding the removal of the work from schools.(80)In another case, the SNS proposed bills to allocate money for a traveling exhibition of "Slovakia's Written Heritage," or shift responsibility of history, language and literature curricula from the Ministry of Education to Matica Slovenska. (81) Both initiatives were rejected under pressure from the media and teachers associations. Inflammatory speeches of SNS politicians about the role of Hungary in Slovak history were publicly analyzed and refuted.(82) In short, the construction and authentication of an ethno-centric and exclusionarist conception of nationhood in Slovakia appears unlikely in the near future.(83)
The ambiguous and contradicting trends in Slovak politics are exacerbated by institutional instability. The rules of the game that structure the interaction between major political actors are outlined in the constitution, but have not yet taken hold in Slovak political life and are often ignored. The Meciar government's program after the 1994 elections declared that "party diversity is an attribute of democracy which the party (HZDS) supports," yet the same program pointed out that "diversity will not be allowed to lead to a permanent political crisis whether in open or hidden form."(84) The latter conception of political diversity appears prevalent in contemporary Slovak politics. It is reflected in the ongoing and open confrontation between the Premier and the President, in the exclusion of opposition parties from parliamentary committees (including the controlling organ of the secret service (OKO)), and the impeachment of unruly members of the governing coalition of parliament.(85) However, in 1995 and 1996 the Constitutional Court, ruled on eleven cases submitted either by the members of the opposition or by the President (one was initiated by the governing coalition)-- nine of which were ruled unconstitutional. In 1997, the Constitutional Court ruled the actions of the Minister of Interior, Gustav Krajci, during the May 1997 Referendum, and the impeachment of a former HZDS MP Gaulieder, were unconstitutional.(86) However, the legal case against Minister Krajci was dismissed by a Bratislava district procurator, T. Sumichrast, and the parliament refused to reinstate the mandate of MP Gaulieder. All this took place after a government memorandum accompanying the application of the Slovak Republic to the EU proclaimed: "Developments in the Slovak Republic show that democratic institutions are firmly anchored and that despite various political changes, the constitutional system is stabilized."(87)
Ambiguous trends in the construction of Slovak nationhood coupled with institutional instability, also are noticeable in the domestic and foreign policies of the Slovak government. For example, the 1993 Constitution, was written in the "name of the Slovak nation," provoking an instant outcry from the Hungarian and other minorities, who did not consider themselves Slovak nationals.(88) At the same time, the 1993 Citizenship Law has an inclusionary and civic character. The law permits any person who was a citizen of the Czechoslovak Federation by 31 December, 1992, to claim citizenship of the Slovak Republic. In addition, the law permits dual citizenship.(89) In another instance, the governmental coalition passed a discriminative Language Law--parts of which were ruled unconstitutional. At the same time, Slovakia became a signatory of the Citizenship of the Union agreement which overrides the Slovak Citizenship Law, and has no language clause.(90)
In addition, efforts to establish favorable conditions for broad and equal citizenship
are
likely
to face obstacles in new, multi-ethnic, and institutionally unstable states like Slovakia
for
several
reasons. First, the state capacity to structure internal relations is low, which opens
opportunities
for entrepreneurial mediated political claim-making. Second, in such states political
entrepreneurs
are likely to make claims on behalf of their respective ethnic constituencies.(91) Third, such claims often bear on the
other
ethnic
group's
interests and could lead to inter-ethnic discord. This suggests that some order is better
than
no order at all (perhaps even under the Meciar government).(92) Finally, since neither the understanding
of nationhood, nor the conception of
citizenship have not yet attained clear contours in Slovakia, the EU strategies could play
an
important role
in shaping Slovakia's national definition. Therefore, if the EU wants to maintain its
influence
over
Slovakia in the future, it 1) should not try to isolate it, and let it become democratic on
its own, 2) should not issue statements and policies that can be used as political capital
by anti-integration nationalists,(93) and
3) should
set
attainable and sustainable criteria that take into account the limits of change in each
applicant's
case.
V. CONCLUSION: CITIZENSHIP, DEMOCRACY AND EUROPEAN
INTEGRATION IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND SLOVAKIA.
Using the criteria for evaluating the level of democracy proposed above, I will
evaluate Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and suggest policies that make more sense
than
the
existing EU
strategies of Eastward enlargement.
The Czech Republic:
Citizenship: Narrow to broad................0.5
Citizenship: Unequal to equal................0.3
Consultation with citizens......................0.8
Protection from arbitrary action............0.7
Slovakia:
Citizenship: Narrow to broad................0.8
Citizenship: Unequal to equal................0.6
Consultation with citizens......................0.7
Protection from arbitrary action............0.3
Assuming that the Slovak minority made a conscious choice to stay in the Czech Republic after the 1993 break-up, has already been to a large degree culturally assimilated, and makes no contentious claims that would bear on the Czech's interests, the Roma remains the only significant and problematic minority group in the Czech Republic. If one agrees with Ralf Dahrendorf's claim that "the true test of the strength of citizenship rights is heterogeneity,"(94) with the Germans gone, the Roma minority is the true test of Czech citizenship. Thus far they barely manage to get a passing grade.
Moreover, the high marks for binding consultation with the citizens and for their protection from arbitrary action suggest a relatively high degree of institutional stability in the Czech Republic. Therefore a change toward more inclusive and egalitarian citizenship policies is likely to be politically and socially sustainable.(95) Thus, there is no reason for the Czech government to further postpone the signing and ratification of more than thirty UN and EU documents concerning human rights.(96) Neither should Canada or Britain hesitate about the reinstatement of visa requirements for Czech citizens in the case of another exodus of Roma. Finally, it seems more feasible for the EU to push for a more inclusive and equal conception of citizenship in the Czech Republic. Once it becomes a full member state and foreigners, such as Algerians from France, begin to look for work and settle in large numbers in the Czech Republic, it might be too late to try to moderate the Czech ethno-centric understanding of nationhood.
In Slovakia, the citizenship laws are clearly broad, yet there are problems concerning equality. Since the proportion of minorities in Slovakia is more than two times greater than in the Czech Republic, and we agree with Dahrendorf's statement regarding the test of citizenship, the Slovaks have to get higher marks in this area for their effort. In the area of binding consultation with citizens, the two elections were ruled free and fair, and one should not blame Meciar for the opposition's lackluster performance. It is true, however, that privatization in Slovakia lacks transparency, and in many instances state property is used to reward individuals for party loyalty. On the other hand, few complaints have come from citizens regarding these matters. Finally, cases like the abduction of the President's son, the impeachment of Frantisek Gaulieder from Parliament, the deliberate sabotage of the May 1997 referendum, the dismissal of Minister Krajci's case by an insignificant district procurator suggest that the protection of citizens from arbitrary action in Slovakia is inadequate.
It seems reasonable to ask what should be done regarding Slovakia's alleged democratic deficit, since, in this comparison, Slovakia, rather than the Czech Republic, is the true test of alternatives to the EU strategy of Eastward enlargement. I propose using Tilly's argument that citizenship is related to democracy in a sense that it engenders an ongoing bargaining process between state agents and societal actors. At the center of this process are issues concerning the extent, depth, and mutual respect for the agreed upon set of rights and obligations.(97) If this is indeed true, assuming that a simple government change is going to fix Slovakia's democratic deficit, amounts wishful thinking. The democratic deficit in Slovakia cannot be improved overnight with, for example, elections that bring a new government. Rather, changes can occur incrementally, leading to a de-concentration of political power, increased uncertainties in the interaction of major political and societal actors, and the consequent acceptance of the rules of the game as the best possible option for all parties.(98)
Today, when the existing political opposition to Meciar is fragmented, the country suffers from an acute shortage of new political personalities, and the electoral preferences are virtually unchanged since 1992 (give or take a couple of percentage points), one possible solution might be the politicization of young people. This, as of yet inactive group of voters, has a vital stake in the future, does not care a great deal about the past, and wants to enjoy the good life right now. Moreover, young and intelligent political actors have at least two assets, they are flexible and reasonable. Neither can be said about most of the old guard. Finally, a political party that has the core of its constituency in the 18-30 age group could attract some of the older constituency with its vitality and a clean record in terms of former communist affiliations, corruption, failures, and undesirable political loyalties.
In addition, Slovakia has a deficit of politically attractive personalities. There are several reasons for this. First, some people are intimidated. Second, others have chosen a career in the private sector. Third, the civil society, where political elites grow and are recruited from, is still relatively weak in Slovakia. These problems, I believe, could be solved with the creation of an upper house--the Senate--for the National Council. The powers vested in the Senate would be less than those of the lower house, yet it would provide the space and environment in which political personalities could grow and mature. Senators would be elected locally in the 81 administrative districts through a majoritarian system. Such elections would enable (1) the best to win, because districts are small enough for the respective constituencies to identify and nominate individuals according to their merits, and (2) the senators would come from all parts of the country thus weakening the existing affinities toward urban centers. All this would not only create viable alternatives to the current political elite, but would contribute to the de-concentration of political power and the reduction of democratic deficit.(99)
Taking into account these points, EU officials should recognize that a change of government is not likely to change the system. On the contrary, only an electorate that is actively engaged in the bargaining process with state agents can accomplish such a systemic change. Second, international isolation of Slovakia is not a viable option at this point, because external third parties such as the EU could play a decisive role in shaping Slovakia's institutional transformation.(100) Third, harsh words, like those of Mr. Oostlander, may have adverse effects, such as strengthening popular support for the extreme right, nationalist faction of the ruling coalition.(101) Fourth, Slovakia's democratic deficit does not hinge simply on the lack of protection from the state's arbitrary actions, but rather from the lack of public awareness in this area. Therefore, a viable EU strategy should provide time and should help to facilitate the internal shake-up of the Slovak electorate that would lead to the activation of the bargaining process described by Tilly. Buying time for the reduction of Slovakia's democratic deficit can be accomplished by formally including Slovakia into the enlargement process and by periodically evaluating progress in problem areas. In order to help facilitate an internal shake-up in Slovakia, EU strategies should exert pressure on the new industrial elites. Therefore, the EU should be more selective in areas such as 1) steel export quotas, (Slovak steel comes from a plant owned by Meciar's men; 2) monitoring PHARE, (to prevent the use of EU money in projects that promote ethno-centrism); and 3) extend the time horizon for distribution of the stabilization package and tie the installments to gradual and incremental changes made in the development and activation of civil society.(102)
In short, if the aim of EU accession strategies is to develop stable institutions that guarantee democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human and minority rights, West European standards should only serve as a point of orientation and should not be applied across the board as unconditionally attainable criteria. Should this be considered a reasonable proposition, then a little more has to be demanded from the Czech Republic in terms of accession criteria, and somewhat less from Slovakia.
14.See T.H. Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class, (Cambridge, 1950).
17. Raymond Aron, "Is Multinational Citizenship Possible?" Social Research, 41/4 (1974: pp 638-56).
18. Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood... p 3.
23.Stefania Panebianco, "European Citizenship and European Identity: from the Treaty of Maastricht to Public Opinion Attitudes," Jean Monet Working Paper in Comparative and International Politics, (University of Catania: December 1996). Also see the Internet:
27. Elizabeth Meehan, pp. 1-4.
31. These developments fit the countries of CEE, yet in China, one can speculate, civil rights might follow after the expansion of political rights. In either case, Marshall's model does not seem to fit the evolution of citizenship in communist and post-communist states.
32.The dissolution of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia created 21 new states.
39.Tilly, "The Emergence of Citizenship...," pp. 231-32."
42.See Tilly, "The Emergence of Citizenship...," pp 233-34.
50. This is particularly true of new multi-ethnic states such as
Slovakia, where internal ethnic relations often spill over into the international realm and
vice
versa. Moreover, due to the fragility of political configuration in the Slovak party system,
attempts to manipulate ethnic relations could destabilize the domestic political scene.
53. The report does not mention other forms of discrimination
against
the
Roma.
65. Pravda, November 11, 1997, "Tisice ludi
demonstrovalo v
Prahe
proti
rasizmu."
68. The 1997 IHF Report, p 90.
73. See the UNHCR report cited above.
87. Cited in Meseznikov, "Domestic Political...," p 14.
89. See "Zakon Narodnej Rady Slovenskej Republiky o
Statnom
Obcianstve," Part 1/3/sec.1.
90. Pravda, "Ochrana Obcana," 11 November 1997,
p.
3.
96. See Miroslav Kusy, "Stav ludskych prav," in Martin Butora
ed.,
Slovensko, 1996, p 51.
98. Przeworski, Democracy and the Market,
Introduction.