Civil Society, Constitution and Legitimacy by Andrew s> Arato (review)

Abstract

I78 SEER, 8o, I, 2002 Arato,Andrew.Civil Society, Constitution andLegitimacy. Rowman&Littlefield, Lanham, MA, Boulder, CO, New Yorkand Oxford, 2000. xiv + 351 pp. Notes.Index.$72.00; $26.95. ANDREW ARATOhaslongbeenanastuteandoriginal analyst ofEastEuropean politicssoit isofno surprise thathisnewbookisa thoughtful additionto the literature on the complexitiesof rebuilding politicalspacesand institutions aftercommunism. Arato'snewbookbuildson hismoregeneralworkon the natureofcivilsocietyanditsplacein democratic politicsanddrawstogether manystrands ofcontemporary politicalthought.Thisblendof theanalytical andnormativemakesthe bookan interesting additionto the literature; the combination ofadesiretoexplainwithasenseofpolitical responsibility makes it very differentto the conventionsof transitologyand consolidology. However,it is notwithoutitsproblemssincethebook'sanalytical concerns andnormative argument arenotpursued evenly. Arato's concernisthedelicatenexusbetweencivilsocietyandconstitutional designandpractice,andhowthetwoarerelatedinthesearchfordemocratic legitimacyduringprocessesof politicaltransformation andreformation. His methodof examiningthe relationship betweenthesethingsis to combine theoretical andhistorical investigation, with,astheprefacetothebookmakes clear,akindofintellectual reassessment ofhowArato'sconcerns haveshifted with the developmentof East Europeanpolitics from civil society to constitutionalism. The resultof thisreassessment is a critiqueof ideasabout transition andrevolutionin EasternEurope.Aratotakesno prisoners here, andmakesfewconcessionsto thereadereither,as he plungesinto a dense reviewofsomefairlydensetexts.Aratopointsoutflawsintheworkofscholars suchasHabermas, whohavewrittenaboutI989 asa momentofrevolution, and in the workof politicalscientistswho have triedto applymodelsof transition basedeitheron theworkof SteinRokkan,oron theexperienceof 'southerndictatorships'. Aratomakestoo manycriticalpointsabouteach approachto summarizehere, but in essence, he findsthatas a rulethey do not payenoughattention totheplaceandfunctionofcivilsocietyinchange.This makesit hardfor themto accountfor eitherthe successesof processesof transformation oritsfaults.Theroleofcivilsocietymakeschangein Eastern Europeunique for Arato, but has eitherbeen ignoredor treatedas an equivalent tosomething missingintheEast(suchasbourgeois society). Arato notessharplythat 'civilsocietywas the "hero"of dissidence[but]political societybecamethemajorprotagonist ofthetransitions' (p.36). The nextsectionof thebookis a corrective to thisview,an explication of theimportance ofinstitutionalizing civilsocietyinthecourseofstrengthening both the democraticstate and the market.Arato developshis corrective argument byre-introducing theconceptofcivilsocietybothasa conceptand as a strategyin the EasternEuropeanstruggleagainstcommunistpower monopolies.He recordsthe way in which this strategywas successfulin Polandand Hungary,and the problemsthat subsequentmovesto create politicalsocietyand to sidelinecivil societygroupsand initiativescreatecl. This movementcreatesa paradox;it helpsto producea transferof power throughnegotiation, butlimitsdemocratization sinceitrestricts theinfluence REVIEWS I79 that civil society can have. This makesthe outcome of change uncertainsince it is hardfor new democraciesto maintainlegitimacyand theirabilityto resist restorationistor authoritarianalternativesis thus not guaranteed. Elections create some legitimacy for governments,but do not necessarilylegitimatethe constitutionalstructuresthatthey inhabit.The legitimationof these structures depends on their allowing for revision and learning, in other words depends on the design of constitutionsthemselvesallowingfor change and adaptation, but should not be an open ended process. This observationmarksa watershedin the book since afterit Arato focuses more and more on the dynamics of constitutionaldevelopment. Both Arato's discussion of the role of civil society in the East European transitionand the paradoxes that it produces, and of the strugglesfor legitimacy that surround constitutions are informative. However, the informed analysis of events and the desire for civil society to have some greater role in the process of democratizationthatArato startswith driftapartsomewhere in the middle of the book. Civil society scarcelygets a mention in the last hundred or so pages of the book, which are concerned with a sophisticated, but narrower, argument about constitutionalismin theory and in East European practice. Consequently, one is left with a sense of how things should be ratherthan an argument as to why they should be that way. This gives the book its uneven feel; it is as though there are two books in one cover competing with one another, and in the end the narrower concerns of constitutionalismprevail. Putting this to one side, however, there is still much to be learnt from the book, especially from its questioning of assumptions about the processes of change in EasternEurope. Department ofGovernment andSociety NEIL ROBINSON University ofLimerick Robinson, Neil (ed.). Institutions and PoliticalChangein Russia.Macmillan, Basingstoke and London, and St. Martin's Press, New York, 2000. xii + 235 pp. Tables. Figures. Notes. Bibliographicalreferences. Index. ?42.50. THIS collection of essays is an attempt to introduce new dimensions to the analysis of institutions. The introductorychapter by Robinson startswith a discussionof 'new institutionalism',set apartfromthe 'old institutionalism'by 'its concern to describe actual behaviour, rather than just map formal organizationalstructures'.Institutionsin thiscontext are definedas 'rules,the existence and enforcement of which both enable and constrainbehaviour by actors within institutions'. This definition covers both formal and informal institutionswhich can exist in tandem, reinforcing, subverting or reshaping each other. For Robinson, this creates an ambiguity in 'what actually constitutesan "institution"', especiallywhen appliedto the processof radical politicalchange. It is, indeed, confusing to deal with a 'ship' which, to quote Neurath's metaphor, 'sailorshave to rebuildon the open sea, without...