ABSTRACT
The consistency of this pattern suggests that it is not accidental. But the question is what produced this pattern. Why is it that democracy has been the outcome on the western part of this post-communist territory and non-democracy on the eastern (and southern) part? Many would argue that this reflects the exposure of these regions to different sorts of cultural influences over time, that ECE has always been more closely hooked in to the cultural developments in Western Europe which have been characterised by the rise of democracy than has the territory of the
former Soviet Union, which has had its own strong authoritarian tradition. Similarly some would argue that the cultural influences shaping the development of Central Asia have not been conducive to democratic development. This is not an argument about the intrinsic, or necessary, nature of these societies, nor does it posit the view that the West is superior. It is simply a statement of historical fact: democratic political forms developed in the West, and although these were exported from their native heartland, they affected different regions to different degrees. Historically, ECE has been influenced by these cultural and political forces much more than its neighbours to the east and south. But an argument about cultural influences (and the proposition above regarding religion must be included here) is unsatisfactory unless it shows how those influences are manifested and how they shape political development.
