Search

The European Union’s (EU) policy in Southeast Europe is in crisis. On the one hand, citizens and governments of the region are frustrated because of the constant postponement of accession to the EU. On the other hand, the region is still viewed in EU capitals and by many of its citizens as a source of instability and problems for the continent. However, various researchers and observers working on politics in Southeast Europe agree that the EU is not innocent regarding the decline of democracy and rule of law in the region. They see the EU as complicit by legitimating and often financially supporting non-reforming governments, so-called “Stabilitocracies”. This article finds evidence for this argument in two less discussed country cases, namely North Macedonia and the Republic of Moldova. However, it also argues that the EU was eventually key in supporting oppositional actors to bring the Stabilocrat-governments down when their time had come. Still, another problem of the EU is addressed: Its inability to support credible reform actors and their agendas in the region by offering a meritocratic EU accession process. The EU is thus not only an involuntary supporter of authoritarianism in the region, but also able to act as an ally of strong opposition movements. However, in its current state and with its current policy the EU seems unable to “bring in the harvest” of its successful actions in Southeast Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Moldova’s parliamentary election on 11 July 2021 resulted in a landslide victory for the Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) that was founded by now President Maia Sandu. The election was the final breakthrough for Moldova’s reform actors who now control the presidency, the executive branch, and parliament. The article presents the election results and then explains the political circumstance in order to understand what happened in Moldova. It then goes on to discuss whether or not the promises of fundamental reform are likely to be fulfilled. For this, it considers PAS’ and Sandu’s track-record, the hurdles they had to overcome so far, compares these to past “reformist” actors, and finally outlines obstacles which might impede even well-intentioned measures of reform. It seems that despite all uncertainties that persist, the new government might be the best chance the country has ever had to turn things for the better in its three decades of independence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The implementation of the Prespa Agreement was the successful endpoint in the process of solving a decades-old dispute between Greece and North Macedonia on the latter's official name. Greece had long shown an uncompromising stance on its neighbour using the same name as its northernmost province. As a result Athens blocked the country's accession to EU and NATO. In North Macedonia, a decade of democratic backsliding and nationalist rhetoric and policies under consecutive Gruevski cabinets left no perspective for a solution of the dispute. However, as the 2015-2017 crisis in North Macedonia set the low-point in this development, the change of government in Skopje finally offered a fresh start to address the issue. The article gives an overview of the process towards the Prespa Agreement's negotiation and implementation. It also offers an outlook on the possible developments after North Macedonia appears to be back on track in the process of Euro-Atlantic integration. Overall, there are many reasons to be optimistic about the current developments. But several problems inside and challenges outside of North Macedonia remain that can make the next steps more difficult [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Macedonia was for more than two years shaken by a deep political crisis that started in the realm of a massive wiretapping scandal revealed in 2015. This crisis finally came to an end when an opposition-led government took power on 31 May 2017. After months of obstruction by the long-term ruling party VMRO-DPMNE and its allies, the centre-left SDSM formed a coalition with three ethnic-Albanian parties and Zoran Zaev was appointed the new Prime Minister. The article takes a closer look at how the crisis took a turn for the better and how the difficult situation after the snap elections of 11 December 2016 was resolved. It then takes stock of the development of domestic and international politics under the new government, as well as the progress of promised reforms. Overall, the government has achieved its intermediate goal and received a recommendation from the European Commission for the start of EU accession negotiations. This recommendation rewarded the ending of state capture, the increase in media freedom, and the inception of important reforms. Still, much remains to be done and most measures still have to reach the decisive stages of legislation and implementation. Progress in the process of Euro-Atlantic integration could help the new government to achieve its agenda while remaining popular with the electorate. This progress, however, is based on a resolution of the name dispute with Greece. Domestic change in Macedonia, it seems, hinges on the willingness at the domestic and international levels to make such change happen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Macedonia held early parliamentary elections on 11 December 2016. They were part of the EU mediated process to resolve the country's ongoing political crisis. The poll led to a narrow majority for the former ruling coalition of VMRO-DPMNE and DUI, but also substantial gains for the opposition SDSM. Even though DUI has governed with VMRO-DPMNE for many years, it has not ruled out a potential change of coalition partner. Still, irrespective of the party's decision and the outcome of negotiations, it seems unlikely that either of the possible coalitions will result in a stable government, needed to initiate an important step towards crisis resolution. The article argues that both constellations are based on very tight majorities and face foreseeable internal frictions as well as external pressure that would soon put the partnership to a hard political test. The outcome of post-electoral negotiations might thus well be another early parliamentary election, potentially in May 2017 together with the local elections. It remains an open question, however, if such a re-run would lead to a different result and enhance the changes for a continuation of the reform process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The collapse of the Communist Party in Moldova in 2009 went hand in hand with high hopes for changes in the country. However, the new governments continued failure to elect a president has instead aroused memories of the 1990s. At that time, the country fell apart both politically and economically: A process that was only halted when the Communists came into power under Voronin. The paper analyses whether anything has changed in Moldova since the tumultuous events of 2009. It compares the former Communist government under Voronin with the current rule of the 'Alliance for European lntegration.' It argues that even though it was the Communist Party that brought Moldova onto a more ambitious path towards European integration, it was the Alliance that added a credible political component to this process. In some areas, reforms continued to progress only slowly. Still, the country has become politically more liberal while maintaining its good record in areas of technical cooperation. Overall, even if the government were to fall as a result of the presidential crisis, Moldova's current path towards European integration seems to be set. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]