ABSTRACT
Previous chapters have shown how the political trajectories of the post-communist states have been shaped by the course of negotiations between old regime actors and civil society forces at the time of regime change. The overwhelming majority of post-communist states have remained on the basic trajectory established at the time of the crisis of communism. At the end of 2000, of the 26 states, only four had clearly shifted between regime types: Belarus had moved from a closed oligarchy to sultanism, Azerbaijan had shifted from closed to open oligarchy and back to closed oligarchy, and Georgia had moved from a plebiscitary democracy to a closed oligarchy and back to a plebiscitary democracy. These changes had all been between sub-types of façade democracy. A more substantial shift, from the open oligarchy type of façade democracy to full democracy, occurred in Romania. By 2000 Croatia may also have been in the process of shifting from a plebiscitary democracy towards a full democracy, while Slovakia may have been making the same journey from open oligarchy. The Romanian experience is most striking: of the nine states which experienced a pattern 6 type of regime change, it is the only one (with the possible exception of Montenegro whose trajectory remains unclear) that did not remain a non-democracy. The issue that these cases raise is why have some regime trajectories changed and others have not? The reverse question is also important: why have the overwhelming number of initial trajectories been confirmed by later development? Explanation of the adoption of the initial trajectories emphasised the importance of civil society forces. The development of civil society also has a part to play in explaining the consolidation or shifting of these trajectories.
