Post-Communist Democratization: Political Discourses across Thirteen Countries by John S. s> Dryzek Leslie Templeman Holmes (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 585 RobertJervis,YaacovY. I. Vertzberger,ErikBeukeland others.He alsoviews his research as assessingtwo of the 'great issuesin the social sciences and the humanities'(p. I4) how to explain complex politicalprocessesand whether it is meaningfulto attemptprediction. What Hallenberg does not mention, however, is a lesson drummed into many of uswho passedthroughthe rigorousmethodological doctoraltraining programmes in the USA. The philosophy of science teaches us that even in the natural sciences prediction is a tricky business. Only when 'perfect knowledge'is obtained (i.e. when allvariablescan be identifiedand measured) can predictionbe possible. Within classicalphysics, this is deemed obtainable in celestial mechanics and non-atomic thermodynamics,but is the exception ratherthan the norm in science. Elsewhereat best, probabilisticexplanation and 'rules of thumb' are followed. As far as the 'soft' social sciences are concerned, voting studies is really the only area in political science where probabilitiescan be estimated and even then there has to be the assumption that pastpatternsstillhold (andin unstablesystemsthey do not). The methodologically bizarre mantra that 'Sovietologistsfailed to predict the collapse'is both misplacedand not an issueworth regretting.Multivariate explanationsof complex historicalphenomena belie confidentprediction and rely best upon detailed knowledge and intuition. Hallenberg's thesis is that concepts of 'state' and 'superpower'are the two factors that made it difficult to get the prediction 'right'(p. 252). This is because they imply stabilityand longevity respectively. He does not address, however, the methodological question of: is stability measurable and what are the necessary criteria for collapse? If these are not answerable with precision, then explanation and prediction as the component parts of the nomological-deductive method are impossible. Some of Hallenberg's own data should have suggested the difficulty of his task. He quotes John Erickson in I986 saying 'My own guess is, I think Gorbachevr is going to have to be careful. I don't think he will last very long, but that is a guess. I have been completely wrong plenty of times' (p. I83). That Erickson talks of 'guess' rather than prediction is revealing of the limits of historical method. While this book is not concise and is somewhat heavy on the signposting of intent, adding little to our understanding of the Soviet collapse, it does bring together a range of views on that topic and offers a useful survey across the field. Lonzdon MARY BUCKLEY Dryzek,John S. and Holmes, Leslie Templeman. Post-Communist Democratization . PoliticalDiscourses across7hirteenCountries. Theories of Institutional Design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 2002. xii ? 300pp. Tables. Figures. Notes. Bibliography. Index. /47.50; 9i6.95. SUSPICION of such a title at firstseemswarranted,a questionmarka necessity. The recent travailsof post-Communiststatesand global threatsto democracy 586 SEER, 8i, 3, 2003 would seem to justify caution in making grand claims for democratic change much beyond the EU aspirants. In fact, this volume manages both to be relatively optimistic, and to justify its stance: it is nuanced, sympathetic to national differencesand fully addressessome of the deterministicimpulsesof the standarddemocratizationliterature. Indeed, the comparativefocus, assumptionsand methodology of this study are distinctive. The countries surveyed fit into five classifications:the 'pretransition 'statessuch as China and 'trailblazers'such as Polandare compared with countries in the throes of transitions,be they 'halting' (the Slavonic exSoviet republics), 'late developers', such as Romania, and those affected by war (Georgia, Armenia and Moldova). This broad yet detailed focus already makes this one of the more ambitious and interesting studies of postCommunist democratization. It becomes rapidly apparent that the authors' 'take' on democratization itself is unusual. Chapter one takes robust issue with the minimalist, Schumpeterianview of democracyprevalentin transitologyfor itselitismand insensitivity to the various forms of democracy and national development. XVhilethis is now a common (if fully justified) refrain, the chapter argues strongly for a much more bottom-up approach that investigates subjective views of democracy as a discourse, seen as vital in 'co-ordinatingaction and determining outcomes where the institutional hardware is weak or underdeveloped ' (p. I3). The argumentfor democracy as a reflexivediscoursethat offersfreedom of action aswell as constraintsis seen as obviatingthe apparent choicelessnessof accountsthatemphasize the institutionalorpolitical-cultural hurdlesto democracy. A detailedmethodology chapterfollows,in which the authorsdescribetheir use of Q-methodology (often used by psychologists) to investigate the subjectivereactionof respondentsto statementsabout democracyin i 996-97. Four diverse discussiongroups...