This thesis studies the prospects for democratic transition in Cuba and Belarus. The theoretical part argues that civil society is an important variable in transition theory and a necessary condition for democratic transition. It furthermore argues that in relation with the political culture of one society and the respective type of regime present in one country it is decisive for a successful democratization. Therefore the theoretical framework to study democratic transition should be widened from elites to masses and from a short term perspective to a long term one. This is somewhat different from other studies that concentrate on structural factors like economic development, economic crisis or international influence to explain democratic transition.
This thesis undertakes a qualitative comparative analysis of two nontransition cases, Belarus and Cuba, to avoid the selection bias of researching only successful cases of democratic transition and to solve the problem of not finding any individually necessary or jointly sufficient conditions for democratization. The aforementioned factors are analyzed for each case, comparing the main findings and drawing conclusions.
The analysis shows that the state of civil society in both countries can only be characterized as embryonic. In the case of Belarus the relatively good starting position of the embryonic civil society after the dissolution of the USSR was not used to strengthen itself. The civil society forces lost continuously support and strength and therefore the ability to fight for democratic transition. The weakness of the Belarusian civil society was therefore a factor that led to a stabilizing of the authoritarian regime.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1 - Theoretical framework
Introduction
1.1 Civil Society
1.1.1 Civil Society Forces
1.1.2 Embryonic Civil Society
1.1.3 The Role of Civil Society in Transition
1.1.4 Civil Society - Regime Interaction
1.2 Regime Type
1.3 Political Culture
Chapter 2 - Totalitarist Cuba vs. Sultanist Belarus
Introduction
2.1 Cuba’s Personalistic Communist Dictatorship
2.2 Sultanism in Belarus
Conclusion- Implications for Regime Change and the Role of Civil Society
Chapter 3 - Political Culture in Cuba and Belarus
Introduction
3.1 Sources of Political Culture
3.2 Alexander Lukashenka, Keeping the Soviet Dream Alive!
3.3 Fidel Castro’s “Revolution” – National Unity and Social Values
3.4 Satisfaction with How the Things Go
3.5 Satisfaction with the Current Regime and Support for Democracy
Conclusion: Are “they” ready yet? - Implications for Democratic Regime Change
Chapter 4 - Civil Society in Cuba and Belarus
Introduction
4.1 The Emergence of an Embryonic Civil Society in Cuba – slowly but constantly
4.1.2 The Varela Project and Oswaldo Paya
4.1.3 The Cuban Spring and Las Damas de Blanco
4.1.4 The Cuban Forum and National Dialogue
4.2 The Abortion of the Embryo- the Set Back of Civil Society Development in Belarus
4.2.1 The Political Opposition and Its Way towards Marginalization
4.2.2 The Character of the Belarusian Opposition
4.2.3 The Rift between the Opposition and the Belorussian Society
4.2.4 The Failure of Unification and the Loss of Strength
Conclusion- Learning from Cuba
Conclusions
Research Objectives and Themes
This thesis examines the prospects for democratic transition in Cuba and Belarus by analyzing the roles of civil society and political culture as critical, non-elite variables that influence regime change. It seeks to answer whether civil society and political culture can generate the necessary pressure for democratization in these two nontransition cases.
- Role of civil society as a necessary condition for democratic transition.
- Impact of political culture on regime stability and potential for change.
- Qualitative comparative analysis of totalitarianism in Cuba and sultanism in Belarus.
- Barriers to democratic transition including state repression and elite-focused strategies.
- Analysis of opposition development and the role of charismatic leadership.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Cuba’s Personalistic Communist Dictatorship
The Cuban regime inherits many adjectives which in sum makes Cuba a totalitarian regime. In Cuba there is no significant economic, social, or political pluralism. The communist party has de jure and de facto the monopoly of power. Democratic established institutions are absent. The regime is of communist nature, which means that an elaborate and guiding ideology exists that articulates an almost unreachable utopia. Leaders, groups and individuals obtain their legitimacy from this ideology. In the field of mobilization communist Cuba has an extensive mobilization into a vast range of regime- created obligatory organizations.
Private life is decried and the emphasis lays on activism of cadres and militants. The totalitarian leadership in Cuba rules with undefined limits. It is charismatic; Fidel Castro and his brother are the shining figures of the Cuban revolution. Recruitment to the top leadership is dependent on the commitment and success within the party organization. Cuba therefore seems to be the best example for applying Linz’ and Stepan’s characterization of a totalitarian regime. Cuba is a personalistic Communist dictatorship enjoying unlimited authority.
Fidel Castro through his roles as Chief of State, Head of government, First Secretary of the Communist Party and commander in chief of the armed forces is responsible for every appointment and controls every lever of power in Cuba. He (and his brother) exercise control over all aspects of life through the security apparatus or the Communist Party. The members of the party’s Politburo are personally chosen by Fidel Castro and the legislative body meets only twice per year to acknowledge decisions and policies of the government. The Council of State is the permanent organ. Judiciary is subordinated to the will of the government and the Communist Party. In Cuba contested elections are absent therefore this country, even though elections exist is not an electoral democracy. Raul Castro is treated as his brother’s successors so that the overall recruitment within the system can be described as “designated”. Both brothers dominate the political system.
Summary of Chapters
Chapter 1 - Theoretical framework: Defines civil society, regime types, and political culture as essential variables for understanding democratic transitions.
Chapter 2 - Totalitarist Cuba vs. Sultanist Belarus: Contrasts the totalitarian communist structure of Cuba with the sultanistic personalistic autocracy in Belarus.
Chapter 3 - Political Culture in Cuba and Belarus: Investigates the historical sources and current state of political values in both countries and their impact on democratization prospects.
Chapter 4 - Civil Society in Cuba and Belarus: Compares the development and effectiveness of embryonic civil society and democratic opposition movements in both regimes.
Keywords
Democratization, Civil Society, Political Culture, Cuba, Belarus, Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, Sultanism, Regime Change, Democratic Transition, Opposition, Fidel Castro, Alexander Lukashenka, Political Participation, Civic Engagement
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this master thesis?
The thesis investigates the prospects for democratic regime change in two specific nontransition cases, Cuba and Belarus, with a focus on civil society and political culture.
Which regimes are being analyzed in this study?
The research compares the personalistic communist dictatorship of Cuba with the sultanistic autocracy under Alexander Lukashenka in Belarus.
What is the primary research question?
The study asks whether civil society and political culture influence democratic transition in Cuba and Belarus and which country holds better prospects for such a change.
What scientific methodology is utilized?
The author employs a qualitative comparative analysis, moving away from elite-centered approaches to focus on the role of civil society and the masses in the transition process.
What is discussed in the main sections of the work?
The main sections cover the theoretical framework of civil society and political culture, a comparative analysis of the specific regime types, and detailed examinations of political culture and civil society in both countries.
Which terms best characterize this academic work?
Key concepts include democratic transition, civil society development, political culture, authoritarian resilience, and comparative regime analysis.
How does political culture affect the democratic prospects in Belarus?
The author argues that a Soviet-style political culture, which prioritizes social stability and strong-hand rule, hampers the development of pro-democratic movements and creates public distrust towards alternative democratic visions.
What distinguishes the Cuban civil society from the Belarusian one?
While both are embryonic, the Cuban opposition is described as more united around a charismatic leader (Oswaldo Paya) and increasingly focused on reaching the population, whereas the Belarusian opposition remains fragmented by personal animosities and lacks a clear, cohesive strategy.
- Arbeit zitieren
- M.A. Nico Rausch (Autor:in), 2008, Prospects for democratic regime change in Cuba and Belarus civil society and political culture, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/115834
